AFCA Upholds Insurer’s Decision in Breast Cancer Claim Case

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

APRA Halts Unjustified Premium Increases in Commercial Auto Insurance 18 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has recently taken decisive action to address significant concerns within the commercial auto insurance sector. In response to widespread industry protests over substantial premium increases, APRA has introduced emergency regulations aimed at safeguarding transport operators from financial hardship. - read more

Deloitte Forecasts Transformative Trends in Australian Insurance for 2026 18 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori As the Australian insurance industry navigates a rapidly evolving landscape, Deloitte's 2026 Insurance Predictions report highlights two pivotal trends poised to reshape the sector: the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and the adoption of advanced climate risk modeling. - read more

TAL's Health Sense Plus Now Covers Income Protection Policies 17 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a significant development for policyholders, leading Australian life insurer TAL has announced the expansion of its Health Sense Plus program to encompass income protection (IP) policies. Effective from 8 August 2025, this initiative aims to incentivise proactive health management by offering premium discounts to clients who engage in preventative health checks. - read more

AFCA Directs Insurer to Reinstate Critical Illness Coverage After Miscommunication 17 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a policyholder who inadvertently cancelled his critical illness insurance due to unclear communication from his insurer, TAL Life. This decision underscores the critical importance of transparent communication between insurers and their clients, particularly regarding the implications of policy modifications. - read more