hi me and the wife are looking for £250,000 life insurance and £35,000 each critical illness
have been given given a quote for £150,000 life and £35,000 critical
just wondered if anyone on here is in the insurance industry might be able to give us a quote
cheers
0
Comments
Be warned though, cheapest doesn't mean best-make sure they cover what you need and go through the exclusions particularly on the critical illness cover.
They will pour over your medical records going back decades in order to link your illness to something you have had in the past and have not declared so's not to give you a penny.
Seriously , don't waste your money.
As an IFA selling CI cover to most of my clients over the past 12 yrs or so I have never had a company quibble a payout.............I admit there have only been 3 , but they have paid out all 3 times. Last episode was a female GP, aged 39 who has been diagnosed with MS - 2 policies paid out giving her over £400k.
clb74 - if you want a sensible discussion & quote them send a mesg to my inbox
My sister aged 32 discovered she has bone cancer in her Jaw seven years ago. Thanks to her dentist who studied her routine Xrays he managed to find a shadow just under a molar and after tests , discovered it was a vigerious form of cancer , luckily just in time. She went through 18 months of hideous kemo and had her lower jaw removed . She is in remission after several surgeries to her face.
She had critical life insurance with a major bank and they will not pay her her out after seven years because they say she should have disclosed her dental records when she took out her policy eleven years ago - four years prior to discovering she had cancer.
Now if you want to still say that this is a ridiculous accusation , I'm quite happy to send you pictures of my sister with her jaw removed and the letters from the insurance company insisting she should have known she was going to get cancer. Believe me you don't want to see them.
Incidentally she was paying £95 a month for this critical life Insurance.
Fuck sending you a message in your inbox , publicly explain on this forum here and now why you think my comments aren't sensible .
Evidence enough ?
I have sent you a message to your inbox of a freind who specialises in life cover. He has recently sorted my cover out for a good rate.
Parasites.
sorry to hear of your sisters problems and my comments re my inbox were aimed at the original poster, not to you.
I wont deny that some companies may try to reduce or reject a claim, but in MY experience, dealing with reputable insurance companies & not banks, then their claims history are excellent.
I know that this will not help your sister, but a word of warning to others out there - always seek Independant advice and avoid the banks at all costs.
RDR is about 30 years too late IMHO.
RDR IMHO is a big mistake. The public at large will not pay for advice, so they want get any & end up either not having enough insurance, savings, pensions etc or being conned, once again, by the banks.
Now I wouldn't dream of tarring all IFA's with the same brush, but having met and work with dozens upon dozens of them over the years I think it's fair to say that there have been plenty of "sharp" practices employed over the years (and yes, I'm being kind). Some might think that certain IFA's have effectively been in the pockets of certain providers because of the commissions they offer. I couldn't comment on that.
Out of interest though, which particular part of the FSA's stated aims for consumer protection do you not agree with?
1. Independent advice is truly independent and reflects investors’ needs.
2. People can clearly identify and understand the service they are being offered.
3. Commission-bias is removed from the system and recommendations made by advisers are not influenced by product providers.
4. Investors know up-front how much advice is going to cost and how they will pay for it.
5. All investment advisers will be qualified to a new, higher level, regarded as equivalent to the first year of a degree
HNWI's - which is where the big money is and which most IFA's aim for - will always pay for decent advice in the same way they currently pay lawyers and accountants.
Overall most people I talk to seem to agree it's been necessary for a while and although not great timing - given the current financial climate - it may at least achieve the purpose of running the cowboys out of Dodge. No bad thing, I'm sure you'll agree.
I tend to side with golfie on this - people will not pay for advice and will end up with the wrong products. Somewhere down the line they're going to be sorry but it will be too late. Will it result in using taxpayers money to bail them out? Surely that is the last thing the government wants.
Bedsaddick: I can understand your anger & frustration as I've had to battle insurers in the past too. If the complaint is now with the Financial Ombudsman it'll be looked at objectively & fairly (I used to work there). They rule on the grounds of "reasonableness" and will rule against a company if their terms are unfair (even if the claim doesn't satisfy the small print).
Of the other points, point 3 is the one that really needed looking at. All the FSA needed to do was to put a menu in place (like us IFA's have had to do) saying that all products would pay the same commission (say 3%) rather than as it was where Investment Bonds pay up to 8% wheras an ISA pays a max of 5%. This is where product bias really kicked in and if all plan & products paid the same amount then this would be greatly reduced.
I would imagine it hard for an adviser to charge £6,000 to select a product from a software driven comparison program. Unfortunately if he charged a fair price, say £500, he would not be able to make a sufficient living. Ultimately, as in most industries, some groups pay more to enable the business to keep running and provide a service to those that pay less. IFAs will not be able to sustain any kind of a living if they are restricted to earning less than £500 on average from each client. It's not like Tesco, you don't do dozens of transactions a week.
What this will mean, strangely, is that the best IFAs will do something else that pays more (because they can) and those that we would all prefer to give up will carry on - they will probably go into doing more mortgages until that is addressed next. There will be much more 'over the telephone' or 'internet' sales. This will, in all likelihood, affect those that need the advice the most, as they will not be able to pay the fees IFAs will have to charge as they can't subsidise the poorer clients from the excessive income they earn from the rich ones.
Of course, there is an argument that many (if not most) IFAs earn way too much for what they actually do. Rather like Football Agents (we are on a football forum, after all). The only real talent they have (over those that don't earn so much) is that they have access to a number of clients who have a lot of money. Once the fee charged becomes reflective of the work done, as opposed to the wealth of the client, the incomes will settle to something more realistic. IFA's earning in excess £100k a year spending two days a week on the golf course are going to have to accept that their lifestyle is going to have to change.
Transparency is all well and good, and the current system ensures that the income the IFA earns is printed somewhere, but actually asking someone to pay it is very different. However, if the sum is so high that the client would refuse to pay it there must be a question as to exactly how the commission was explained to the client in the first place?
There is growing controversy about the alarming number of critical illness claims that are rejected out of hand by insurers.
One in five critical illness claims is turned down, a far greater proportion than other types of insurance. In contrast, just one in 100 life insurance claims is rejected.
Of particular concern is the number of critical illness claims rejected on the grounds of "non-disclosure". This means the insurer refuses to pay out because the policyholder failed to mention something on their application form, even if this has nothing to do with their subsequent claim.
Consumer groups such as Which? have attacked insurers, claiming they are using non-disclosure rules to wriggle out of paying valid claims. And the Financial Ombudsman Service has also waded into the controversy. Both have criticised insurers for producing lengthy application forms with complex and ambiguous questions that can require prospective policyholders to remember and accurately record every minor ailment and visit to the doctor over the previous five years................................
It's a very long article but you get the gist. For those interested in the rest of the article here's the link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/2952574/Critical-illness-insurance-claim-and-counter-claim.html
licensed thievesinsurance companies are doing no more than obfuscate and seek to avoid their obligations just as they do with other forms of insurance.The behaviour of the besuited scum that populate this "profession" is particularly distasteful when it comes to something like critical illness where vulnerable people have paid many years premiums in good faith.
The sooner a major insurance company gets done for misselling critical illness cover, in the way the banks have for misselling PPI, the better as far as I am concerned.
Some of these things are obvious (smoker/non smoker) but some are less so. If the insurance company can prove that something was not disclosed then it has an obligation to it's shareholders and it's current policy holders to refuse to pay out. I know this sounds harsh, especially when at the time of a claim there is a lot of stress and upset, but if something is 'hidden' from the underwriters (even if the deceit is unintentional) the policy is void.
The consumer deserves protection from licensed muggers.
If they can avoid paying out, despite happily accepting premiums, then they will!
In my view if they decide a policy is void because of "non obvious" disclosure then they should return all the premiums they have accepted. They should not be able to have it both ways.
The problem with that though is that it is the cheaper option for these shysters and they would reject even more claims unjustifiably!
Also those liars would re-broke their policies at regular intervals so that if they were 'caught out' with a claim they would only have to pay the difference on their current policy. If they changed their policy every year, for example, the worst that they would have to pay is twelve months premium deficit. This would result in those liars getting free cover at the expense of those that tell the truth.
I'm sure there is some reason that you are so angry with the industry and I'm not saying that they don't make mistakes, but it's not a million miles away from an adult getting into Charlton with an U11 ticket, getting away with it for years and then getting caught once and paying the £20 upgrade fee.
In my opinion there is no excuse for one failing to remember a health issue, and as I understand it if it is a mistake the companies do deduct the premiums from the pay out.
Either way having a system that allows for cheats to guarantee insurance for well below market prices would encourage significant abuse.