Insurence Claims
John.Foster
present having a battle with Norwich Union. In the course of this I accesed
their online site and accesed the relevent brochure(safeguard policy) which
has been changed completely. What I did notice was that they have added a
new exclusion. They will not pay out for ME/CFS, so you can be compltely
disabled with ME/CFS have being paying your policy for years but MECFS does
not count. Anyone have any thoughts on this.
John
Steve Wells
"John.Foster" <John.F...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9d3uaa$igd$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
At least they can't discriminate against us because of genetic tests!
(well not yet.....)
Insurance is generally only useful till you try and claim in my
experience I am afraid.
--
Steve Wells
Nottingham U.K.
Helen Page
out for that, but if you go and get M.E./CFS it's tough? Grrr! Do they think
M.E./CFS is just "Yuppie Flu" and nothing serious, or something like that?!
How about some awareness-raising?
Sorry if I'm just waffling/ranting, but that does NOT seem very fair to me!
Helen. x
"John.Foster" <John.F...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9d3uaa$igd$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Bill Scott
<9d40iv$g57$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Insurance is generally only useful till you try and claim in my
>experience I am afraid.
>
>--
>Steve Wells
>Nottingham U.K.
>
Ah yes I need insurance.
Insurance sir? no problem here we are we will take your money.
I need to claim on my insurance.
Insurance Sir, oh no your policy doesn`t cover that sorry.
Grrrrrrr! :o(
John.Foster
Too right, They think it's either yuppie flu or in your head. What
I did was to get onto the DDA site (Disability Discrimination site) I sent
them an email stating all the facts and asked them to take Nowrich Union on
for Disability Discrimination. What is needed if you want to stop this kind
of thing is for as many people to complain as possible. Thru all third
parties you can think off, because lets face it if they can away with all
the rest will try it on..
John
"Helen Page" <cel...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9d45qt$fh$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Jeremy C B Nicoll
The real problem is whether or not this condition is meant to apply
retrospectively.
It's fair that an insurance company can impose whatever conditions they
like on a particular policy, after all you are expected to read all the
bumf and decide if you will accept such restrictions before you take the
policy on.
What would be unreasonable is if a policy you have that was taken out
before such a ruling came along is changed so that it no longer covers
you for the problem... though I imagine that would also only be a problem
if you'd acquired ME/CFS and were about to make a claim but hadn't yet
got around to it.
Or am I being naive?
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
alison.aldred
having spoken to a relative of mine (wishing to remain nameless for legal
reasons) who is an insurance broker he has offered the following advice...
you said that these exclusions were new to the policy since you took it out.
are you able to prove that you have never been informed of these amendments
at a time of renewal, i.e. when they were added? if you can prove that they
did not advise you of the change you may have a case against CGNU. they are
not allowed, by law, to change a policy without writing to the insured to
inform of the change. i was also advised to plead 'ignorance' (can't
remember the latin phrase used) regarding the brochure on the web. it must
be in writing to YOU.
i too have a safeguard policy, didn't know until i checked this evening! i
shall be looking to see if my original policy from 3 years ago contains the
exclusions or any following renewal notices contain the change. they could
be in great trouble if they have not told us!
Ali
John.Foster <John.F...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9d3uaa$igd$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Deborah Kelly
<John.F...@btinternet.com> writes
>Helen,
> Too right, They think it's either yuppie flu or in your head.
I very much doubt they even have an opinion on it. However, because PWME
have such varying degrees of severity (everything from being over-tired
at the end of a five day week to being bed-bound and unable to speak),
it is very difficult to determine how seriously one individual is
*really* effected. Because of this difficulty, and because they can get
away with it, they might as well exclude ME/ CFS from coverage.
If this exclusion was not in place when you took out the policy, one
would assume that you have grounds for appealing. ME has been recognised
by the World Health Authority as an organic illness since 1995, so
there's plenty of information out there to throw at them if they
insist that they don't acknowledge its existence or any such non-sense.
Good luck with it all,
Deborah :-)
alison.aldred
These exclusions, however phrased, are both legal and legitimate. They may,
however, not be universal and will apply to all new business.
You would not be able to join such a scheme if you already have ME, with or
without these exclusions because all such policies are subject to an implied
or expressed "pre-existing" cause exclusion. These days I would be amazed if
a policy didn't write such an exclusion into the policy.
For existing policy holders ME might or might not be written into the
original policy exclusions. Its going to depend on how old the policy is. Be
cautious here as the "pre-existing" cause exclusion might pick this up.
If there is no such specific exclusion in the policy and the "pre-existing"
cause exclusion cannot apply - no problem, BUT have you got all renewal
notices? Have the insurers notified you, at renewal, of any changes to the
contract terms and conditions? If they haven't, and subject to the
"pre-existing" cause exclusion not applying, that's their problem.
Remember, a new contract applies at each renewal (unless the policy is not
an annual one - it does happen!). so any claim would need to be made within
the appropriate period of insurance. The law does allow for common sense to
apply and, as in your case, it would be from the time a correct diagnosis
was made. This isn't unreasonable because it does allow you to draw on the
experience of the insurers medical back-up teams. Rehab is now considered a
priority and because it keeps the claims down, minimises fraud and should
restore the claimant to, as far as possible, health quicker than if left to
the lottery of the NHS.
Ali
John.Foster <John.F...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9d3uaa$igd$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Jeremy C B Nicoll
> present having a battle with Norwich Union. In the course of this I
> accesed their online site and accesed the relevent brochure(safeguard
> policy)
What specifically is "safeguard" ?
alison.aldred
Jeremy C B Nicoll <Jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a76f7f8...@omba.demon.co.uk...
Steve Wells
"Bill Scott" <bil...@ntlworldMYOHMY.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9099C786CA7B2b...@62.253.162.106...
> "Steve Wells" <st...@swells.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in
> <9d40iv$g57$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> >Insurance is generally only useful till you try and claim in my
> >experience I am afraid.
> >
> >--
> >Steve Wells
> >Nottingham U.K.
> >
>
> Ah yes I need insurance.
> Insurance sir? no problem here we are we will take your money.
> I need to claim on my insurance.
> Insurance Sir, oh no your policy doesn`t cover that sorry.
I read the Sunday Times whilst awake in the middle of the night and came
across this.
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/Sunday-Times/frontpage.html?107
0591
(long link so cut and paste.)
Seems for insurers you can even have the wrong kind of brain tumour.
Helen Page
"Deborah Kelly" <de...@lunaticantics.com> wrote in message
news:PKU3EBAR...@lunaticantics.com...
> If this exclusion was not in place when you took out the policy, one
> would assume that you have grounds for appealing.
That's what I was thinking, brain fog got in the way...
Sorry about the short msg, headache... Night!
Helen. x
Tony Houghton
going into a black-hole, so sorry if this is late or the original
escaped before I had my problem]
In <9d3uaa$igd$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
John.Foster <John.F...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Do they try to exclude most long-term illnesses, or just any that they
think they can get away with because the rest of the establishment is
trying to sweep it under the carpet too?
This might actually help your claim though. If the new contract
explicitly excludes ME/CFS, but the one you signed doesn't mention it,
you've possibly got a good argument that yours therefore must have
implicitly included it. OTOH their lawyers will probably argue that ME
was excluded all along, and they've only changed the wording to remove
any possibility of ambiguity, not that there was any ambiguity, it's not
their fault that as a non-lawyer you misread it, they just want to make
sure that nobody else makes the same mistake even though it's not NU's
fault etc etc, drone drone.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk