I am curious about the headline, which suggests that the definition of MS in the CommInsure contract was "secret" and that CommInsure would "avoid paying" the claim.

Only, I'd bet that that all the definitions were right there in black and white in the policy document ..... and, on my reading, CommInsure WILL pay the claim, but there will be a delay of 6 months after the claimant is no longer able to work, until the claimant satisfies the standard definition of TPD.

Is this a case of not letting the facts stand in the way of a good headline?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

The headline is valid. CommInsure said that according to them she didn't have the disease.

It's not reasonable to expect a layperson to understand an insurer's definition of dozens of diseases before taking out a policy.

It IS reasonable to expect, having been diagnosed with a disease by a medical specialist, the insurance company honours the diagnosis by paying the customer what she is owed.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Exactly, Bette. Perfectly summed up. As the article points out there were so many examples of this 'sneakiness' exposed in the Royal Commission. John De Ravin may not agree with you. Ken Hayne most definitely would!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Circulate and inform everyone of Comminsures actions & let the public decide if their actions are reputable & fit for purpose. Personally I don't think it passes the pub test!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

The headline is not valid. The terms and conditions of the policy were there in the policy document. Offered under super for low cost. She should think herself lucky that she had the insurances (she didn't know about and didn't actively set up herself for these unexpected cases) and that they all paid in the event she was unable to work again. There are a lot of people out there who cannot work due to injury and don't have the super fund insurance to help them...

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

This article is questioning MS definition for a TPD claim!

MS & all other medical definitions apply to Critical illness (trauma) cover and not TPD.

TPD claims assessments do not consider the diagnosis but how that diagnosis impacts on the capacity & return to work.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I am a medico and I came through to this article after reading in Nov2020 Money magazine that TPD insurance may be hard to qualify for in Super.

After reading this article its not just Super TPD insurance that should be questioned-looks like some very popular insurances outside super are dodgy with some weird definitions. Point is not if they have it all documented or not. Point is-no one should have to read through the fine details of the Super insurance definitions of what is considered as a TPD! If a medical doctor certifies-then that should be a gospel. Doctors are not going to falsely certify someone with such drastic illness just to claim TPD. (if they do, they should be stripped off their license). There should be a a standard def as per the govt rules of what conditions are classified as entitlement for TPD and the same rules/defintions should apply to all Insurance claims

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.