Onus on insurers to make CI changes work - Defaqto

heffer-ben-cutout

Defaqto believes the onus is on insurers to make the new ABI critical illness (CI) statement of best practice a success.

It also expects the next two years to see some "interesting developments" as providers implement the changes before the end of 2012 deadline.

The ABI introduced the latest statement of best practice last week following a prolonged period of research and consultation with consumers and industry groups.

Its primary aim was to clarify the definitions surrounding total and permanent disability (TPD), although a complete name change was eventually scrapped after poor industry feedback.

Ben Heffer, protection analyst at Defaqto, applauded the changes and acknowledged the work involved.

"It is important for providers to develop products that meet people's needs, and to make it easy for advisers to sell their products," he said.

"The ABI has worked hard to come up with the new definitions for total and permanent disability to help providers in this area. The key is how quickly insurers adopt these measures - they have until 2012 to do so - and therefore the next couple of years should see some interesting developments.

"However, the role of advisers is as important as ever to ensure that their clients are clear about what their policy does and does not cover - and the educational material, to be delivered later, will help IFAs with this," he added.

Defaqto has also produced a breakdown of what the statement of best practice will mean to IFAs.

 

Visitor Comment

Add your comment

  

Add your comment

We won't publish your address
Submit your comment

No

Sadly I don't share Ben's anthusiasm for the results of the ABI review. We have five model wordings for PTD which insurers can exceed if they wish, i.e. a failure to carry out 2 of 6 tasks instead of 3 of 6. However, there is no rational reason to suggest that the changes will have any impact on declined PTD claims and this has been the aim of this extended exercise. The prime reason for declined PTD claims is the use of activity-based definitions which require such a high degree of disability as to be all but useless. Any PTD definition that is not 'own' or 'suited' occupation should be dropped as it is liable to end in a declined claim and then an investigation by the FOS.

Posted by: Alan Lakey | Mar 04 2011

Follow us now

For all the latest news and views from COVER

Follow us now

Advertisment

Email alert

Register for the COVER newsletter today

Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within the protection and health insurance market.

Print Edition

coverprintedition

Cover - everything you need to know about the protection and health insurance market

All of the latest news and features on all aspects of the protection and health insurance market are available from our print edition.

REQUEST A PRINT SUBSCRIPTION

IFAonline Jobs

IFAonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies now.

Advertisment

Events

protection-and-health-forum-2012

Cover Protection and Health Forum 2012

04 Oct 2012- 04 Oct 2012

Park Plaza Victoria, London

cover-excellence-2012

Cover Excellence Awards 2012

04 Oct 2012- 04 Oct 2012

Park Plaza Victoria, London

coverbb-logo

Business Protection Breakfast Briefing

25 Apr 2012- 25 Apr 2012

On Air Studio, 32-34 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8JB

MORE EVENTS