« Take Life Back | Main | Consultation open: Insurance Contract Law Review »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'll admit to being surprised that this story made it to air, as prima facie, this was a clear case of non-disclosure and I understood the Ombudsman agreed. (BTW - Where was the Adviser in this?)

Your point, Russell, of how to overcome the '30-year memory test' in more genuine cases, is the more salient one, but one that the industry may always grapple with.

J-P Hale

Good comments Russell.

The salient point on this article is the none disclosure of the sleep apnea. The client knew it, uses a prosthetic every day and didn't disclose it. In his own words it was a managed condition and didn't feel that it was relevant.

That's the core of this issue. Disclosure and deciding what the insurer should know after specifically asking, results in this situation.

When I say core to the issue, when it comes to income protection and sleep apnea at underwriting, every insurer in New Zealand will decline cover.

The rest, was fluff...


I note on the Fair Go article the "Guinea Pigs" had no adviser assisting and this is why they would have found it difficult. It wasn't stated that almost all occasions an adviser would assist a client to complete an application to ensure all detail is captured. I agree with Mike, when i saw the article i wondered where the adviser was in the process. That is the application and the claim.

The comments to this entry are closed.


* indicates required

My Other Accounts

My Photo
Chatswood overview image
Chatswood Overview Video
Industry research image
Industry Research Video
Site news image
Chatswood Site News and Usage Permissions Video
Slideshow 1
Insurance Robo-Advice in NZ - Situation Review and Future Prospects
Slideshow 2
Chatswood Data Services


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004