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.
Advertisment
Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within 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.
Advertisment
On Air Studio, 32-34 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8JB
Visitor Comment
Add your comment
Add 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
Add your comment