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

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more