by Rob Hosking
“There is a paranoia about people,” he says.
“When you look at some of the claims it is quite evident there is justification for concern – but it goes over the top at times.”
Klee’s submission on the recent Human Rights Commission paper on insurance cover highlighted four areas of difficulty. He cites an over-use of “deferred” applications, many of which, he says, should be declined outright, but insurance companies do not want to be involved with the first test case; unreasonably long deferment periods; and insurers facing a dilemma over claims which go outside the reinsurer’s underwriting guide.
Reinsurers take a tough line on whether a claim falls within or outside their guidelines, Klee says.
Klee says few people are knocked back for life cover and exclusions are rare.
However exclusions are commonplace with income protection, total and permanent disablement, trauma and health insurance.”
Klee says the Human Rights Act “leads the world” in this area, and insurers and reinsurers worldwide are watching to see how New Zealand’s treatment of such issues, including such thorny topics as genetic testing, develops.
Klee says that, at a practical level, such issues highlight the importance of communication between underwriting and claims departments within insurance companies.
“The worrying thing, from an adviser point of view, is that some companies are inclined to, in effect, underwrite at claim-time rather than upfront.
“Some insurers it is easy to get business underwritten, and some less so. But it may well be that those insurers who make it easy at the beginning are going to be a lot tougher at claim time.”
Rob Hosking is a Wellington-based freelance writer specialising in political, economic and IT related issues.
| « Tax breaks for health insurance pushed | Asteron rolls out new key person policy » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved