AFCA Upholds Insurer’s Decision in Breast Cancer Claim Case

2

The woman was diagnosed with cancer in her right breast on October 5 of last year, followed by the discovery of cancer in her left breast eight days later. She filed claims under her critical illness policy that she had obtained on July 17.

However, TAL Life, her insurance provider, rejected the claims based on the policy's three-month qualifying period for cancer coverage.

In its ruling, AFCA noted that the policy had provisions to potentially waive the qualifying period if the policyholder could prove they were insured either under a previous TAL policy or by another insurer for the same events, right before their new coverage commenced.

The claimant contended that she had cancer coverage through an insurance policy provided by her husband's employer. She presented a letter from the employer affirming that she was covered under a "life, accident, critical illness, and medical insurance" scheme from August 2020 until June last year. Additionally, she showed documentation indicating her husband’s policy did include critical illness coverage for spouses, encompassing cancer.

While AFCA accepted the availability of this cancer coverage, it was not convinced that she held such coverage "immediately before the current policy began." It also noted she had failed to disclose her previous insurance when applying for the new policy with TAL Life.

"There is no information before me about the extent of the critical illness cover the complainant had, if any, through her husband's employer’s insurance arrangements," AFCA’s ombudsman stated.

"Furthermore, it appears that any cover she might have had ceased about a month before the new policy started. I am not convinced there was 'continuity of cover' as suggested by the complainant."

The ombudsman expressed AFCA’s sympathy towards the claimant, especially given that the diagnoses occurred "very close to the end of the qualifying period." Nonetheless, he emphasized that there was no valid reason for the qualifying period to be dismissed.

"The qualifying period is reasonably short and its existence is not unjust. These terms are part of all insurance policies and they draw necessary boundaries. The enforcement of these terms is not inherently unfair," the ombudsman elaborated.

For a more detailed account of the ruling, refer to the original report by AFCA.

Published:Wednesday, 4th Sep 2024
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

NSW Introduces Strata Law Reforms to Strengthen Community Governance 19 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori On 27 October 2025, the New South Wales (NSW) Government implemented significant reforms to strata laws, aiming to enhance transparency, accountability, and financial management within strata schemes. These changes are designed to better meet the evolving needs of strata communities across the state. - read more

Strata Insurance Affordability Holds Steady Despite Rising House Insurance Costs 19 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori In its 2025 State of the Strata Market report, CHU has revealed that strata insurance premiums have experienced a modest increase of 2.8%, rising to an average of $981 per lot in the year leading up to June 2025. This increment is notably lower than the 14% surge observed in house insurance premiums during the same period. - read more

Consumer Advocates Push for Ban on Strata Insurance Commissions in NSW 19 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori Consumer advocacy groups, including the Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) and the Owners Corporation Network (OCN), are urging the New South Wales (NSW) Government to implement a ban on commissions related to strata insurance. They argue that such commissions create conflicts of interest and compromise transparency within the strata management sector. - read more

AFCA Criticises TAL for Unfair Termination of Income Protection Benefits 16 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled against TAL, a prominent life insurer, for terminating a policyholder's income protection benefits without prior notice. This decision underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness in the management of insurance claims. - read more