The comment stream

Recent comments

Reader poll

Should you fix your mortgage now or stay floating?

Choices

Why insurance application forms are never 'simple' and are never the end of the matter

Posted in Insurance

Andrew HookerBy Andrew Hooker

When you apply for an insurance policy, the insurance company usually asks a number of questions and on that basis decides whether to insure you.

This “underwriting” is completed before the insurance company agrees to insure you.  

Once the insurance company issues the policy, most people believe that their insurance is safe. 

What many people don’t realise is that it is not until claims time that the insurance company will often conduct more detailed investigations to find out if you have told them everything that they need to know. 

Claims time is "moment of truth" in the relationship between you and your insurance company, and of course if any issues arise in relation to your policy, it is too late then to address them.

The type of things that insurance companies will often do once you make a claim is:
(1) demand that you complete a disclosure form so that they can check with the Ministry of Justice about any convictions that you might have;
(2) in the case of medical or life insurance demand that you provide access to all medical records dating back as many years as the insurance company thinks appropriate;
(3) check on the Insurance Claims Register, a database operated by the Insurance Council, to see whether you have had any previous claims.

Of course, all of these resources are easily available to the insurance company before they issue the insurance, but very few insurance companies ever bother checking. 

They simply provide you with a relatively simple “tick box” application form, or even ask a few questions over the phone, and then issue the policy. 

If you forget something, or make a mistake, or even misunderstand a question, you will never know that your insurance is invalid until many years later when you make a claim. 

In relation to medical, income and life insurance policies, the application forms and processes can also be very technical and difficult to understand. 

There are numerous fishhooks and traps for young players. 

These can be categorised into three categories:
(1) the questions that no one can understand because the terms are so technical that you would need a medical degree to answer them;
(2) the questions that end with “or any other condition”;
(3) the questions that no one could every answer “no” such as – “have you in the last five years visited a doctor or obtained medical advice”.

It is these questions that come back and cause problems at claims time.  

Often the insurance company will request your entire file including clinical notes from your general practitioner and carefully analyse them to see if there is anything that you didn’t disclose. 

Lo and behold, when you visited your doctor eight years ago telling him or her that you were feeling a bit down, the doctor recorded this as “being depressed”. 

The insurance company then says that you failed to disclose a history of depression and refuse your claim.  (This is an actual case)

The days of insurance companies relying on these technicalities or tactics are drawing to a close. 

To be fair, many reputable insurance companies would not usually act in this way. 

Legislation like the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act and industry Codes of Practice are making it more difficult for insurance companies to escape on such technicalities but it still happens regularly and there is a surprisingly close correlation between the size of the claim and the likelihood of any insurance company hunting for non-disclosures.

What can you do to protect yourself?

Think about inviting your insurance company during the application process to contact your doctor to obtain a copy of your file upfront. 

There is no reason why an insurance company can’t check the Insurance Claims Register or contact your previous insurance companies before accepting your application, and if you invite them to do so, then they cannot complain at the end if you have made any mistakes or if there are any oversights. 

The insurance company may not like it when you ask them to do the work upfront. 

But if they won’t then you need to ask how committed the insurance company is to a transparent and open application process.

Insurance can be a complex minefield for the uninitiated. 

But if you make sure that the insurance company does its job up front, that may reduce the risk of "standing on a landmine" at claims time.

=============

Andrew Hooker is a partner in the North Shore law firm Turner Hopkins and a director of Claims Information Specialists Ltd, running an insurance information web site www.claimsinformationspecialists.co.nz

.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

11 Comments

Of course, all of these

Of course, all of these resources are easily available to the insurance company before they issue the insurance, but very few insurance companies ever bother checking.

Why do regulators/govt allow insurance companies to get away with this ? 

Completely disagree that

Completely disagree that insurance companies should have to check with the Ministry of Justice or the ICR for every policy that is written. That is a preposterous statement. It is a fundamental principle of insurance law that the parties to a contract of insurance act with the “utmost good faith” in their dealings with each other. This means that the customer and the insurer are obliged to clearly and accurately inform each other about all of the important information relating to the proposed insurance. In the case of the customer, the principle of utmost good faith means that he/she must inform the insurer about any facts, which may be material to the insurance cover sought, such as criminal or traffic convictions, previous claims history etc. A prudent insurer will ask a range of questions that will clearly be geared towards obtaining this material information from the customer. To suggest that insurers should do all the groundwork at underwriting time regardless of what he customer has informed them seems at odds with “utmost good faith”. The customer needs to take responsibility for understanding the proposal questions and if in doubt then just disclose everything and certainly don’t sign a proposal form if you don’t understand a question.

And lenders don't have to do

And lenders don't have to do credit checks because of the uptmost good faith, yeah right. As an insurer you should have to do what a lender does, and that is assess the risk independantly of the application. The reason insurers don't is because its a numbers game, they get paid up front and when the risk materialises they then look for an out.

As a lender you pay out upfront, you buy the story and then accept the repayments.

Such an antiquated and

Such an antiquated and cynical viewpoint! I would highly doubt that any insurer today would decline a claim based on undisclosed material information that had not been addressed in a question to the insured at the time of writing the insurance! 

Should insurers go down the track of assessing the risk regardless of what the prospective insured discloses (or doesn't disclose) by checking the ICR or Ministry of Justice etc then this will of course increase its underwriting expenses and therefore these additional costs incurred will need to be passed onto  the customer! So if customers are happy to pay more in premiums for all this additional work done by the insurer at underwriting time then fair play! But I, as an honest person who would disclose any material information to my insurer, would not want to pay these addional costs.

It'd heartening to see such

It'd heartening to see such optimism.  Unfortunately the reality is that I have numerous cases on my books at any one time where precisely this happens!  Why do some insurers do this...because they can!!  I wouldn't worry about the cost.  If insurers did proper underwriting before issuing the policies, they would save the cost at claims time.  And as a former director of the ICR I know that it is relatively simple for insurers to automate this process. 

Times are changing and the

Times are changing and the ability of an insurance company to rely on old fashioned 300 year old principles is drawing to a close.  Why does the insurance industry think they they are so different to everyone else?  There's no other area of business in which an innocent error will always allow avoidance.  The right to terminate (rather then seek damages) is, in other areas, reserved for essential breaches only. 

The tide is turning and those who cling so desparately to these archaic and ill conceived priviliges are like King Canute trying to stop the tide...

dont know about private

dont know about private insurers but did have problems getting ACC to honour their contract with me as an insurance co.stopping payments and bullying and downright unpleasantness.

Andrew You are not worried

Andrew

You are not worried about the cost that will increase due to a prudent insurer checking ICR and MOJ for their records, but let me give you some insight.

Out of every 100 applications, there are less than 5 where the insurer will decide not to insure the person based on their criminal or claims history. All of these 100 people will have to contribute towards those costs. isn't it better to do these checks on claim time for only those 5 people and keeps the costs down.

There are many other reasons why the premuims increase and the weather events in the last few years have shown us that. I find it bizzare that you recommed the premiums should increase even further by taking your idea. Maybe you can afford the increased premiums but an average New Zealender can't I'm sure.

Anonymous

Insurance companies said when

Insurance companies said when they launched the ICR that the ICR would help reduce claims costs by reducing fraud.  I haven't seen a cent of that passed on to customers.  There is no reason whatsoever why this cost needs to be passed on to customers.  That is just a worn out old mantra used by insurers for years.  An automated cross checking process would be relatively easy and cost effective to set up.  And once implemented it would cost next to nothing. Many insurers simply find it more concenient to do a quick and dirty sales process, get the cash rolling in and worry about underwriting when the customer needs them most.

Andrew, How can I find out

Andrew,

How can I find out what information may be held on the claims register.

I am insured with AMI, who are not involved with the register, and an approach to State for a quote to switch insurances, and a request to access the register was met with a refusal. They were happy to provide insurance cover but said that they would only check the register if a claim was made. I had some problems 24 years ago which resulted in a criminal conviction, which has subsequently been wiped under the clean slate provision. I want to be absolutely sure that if this information is held on the register, and if I needed to make a claim,  that my Insurance company  would not refuse to pay out based on failure to disclose that information at the time the Insurance was taken out.

New insurance company market

New insurance company market practices are so corrupt that it is dangerous to your life to rely on insurance in NZ.

I have worked on a project for two decades and have evidence of insurance company market practices being so poor that it proves there is no good faith, no meeting policyholder expectations, no treating customer fairly, and so on....these are simply words and systems the industry set up to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators.

How bad is it - well the project has evidence of insurance company malpractices that includes false documents, forged signatures, fake policy replacement documents, and its all done with such expertise that not even lawyers notice it - not even Andrew Hooker who wants legal fees to turn a page before helping in the public interest.

The insurance industry is another Enron II waiting to happen.