FSCL: New rules could help non-disclosure problems
External disputes resolution providers say non-disclosure is a big issue for the New Zealand insurance industry, and advisers could be doing more to help.
Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 10:00AM 
3 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Karen Stevens said about 11% of the complaints her office received last year related to non-disclosure.
She said there needed to be a law change on non-disclosure to help customers who accidentally left out information when they applied for insurance.
“We need legislation to bring us more in line with the law in Australia and the UK, preferably an Insurance Contracts Act. This would help prevent many consumers from finding themselves in the difficult situation of being uninsured, or potentially, uninsurable.”
She said advisers needed to remember they had a role in educating clients about their obligations. She said if they were filling out forms for their clients, they needed to remember that there was the possibility the client might complain about them in future. She said her office sometimes got complaints from clients who said they did not understand or were not told about what they were meant to disclose.
At FSCL, chief executive Susan Taylor said her office received one or two complaints a month from clients who said an adviser had not properly explained their duty of disclosure when they took out a policy.
“Or the client says that they told their adviser about a certain medical condition and the adviser has said not to bother writing that down on the insurance proposal form. These complaints infer that the adviser is acting in his/her own interests - to sell the product, rather than the client’s interests,” she said.
“Under the current review of the FAA, it is proposed that all advisers will be required to place the client’s interests first, and all advisers will be subject to a new code of professional conduct, that will endorse the 'client’s interests first' rule. I hope this will, in time, lead to a reduction in the complaints that we see.”
| « Kiwi company attracts $200 million global investment | Advisers must add value in digital future » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
This will dramatically drive up premiums or result in additional exclusions/reduced cover. Not fair on the diligent/honest. We should stop rewarding those who cannot be bothered to read terms and conditions and then expect others to bail them out. A famous Justice once said the law of equity is there to protect the diligent not the imprudent! And by the way, it is not unscrupulous insurers 'ruining lives' it is the non-disclosure by the applicant.
It would be useful if Karen Stevens could share her thoughts on how and what 'accidently left out' means in practice. The risk is that every non-disclosure is 'accidentally left out', which no solution either.
My experience with insurers in NZ is that immaterial non-disclosure of minor issues, issues one can be forgiven for 'accidentally forgetting' is not the problem. The problem is with clients who, for whatever reason, do not properly disclose what is asked of them. I suspect this is often due to not understanding the importance of disclosure and what is required, an area where a skilled adviser can help enormously. Should disclosure be an obligation of the adviser? No clearly not, but, advisers should be in a position to and actually give, suitable advice and guidance around filling out the forms. When in doubt disclose!
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
