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

Australian Insurers Navigate AI Disruption Fears 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In recent weeks, Australia's leading insurance companies, including Insurance Australia Group (IAG), Suncorp (SUN), and QBE Insurance (QBE), have experienced notable declines in their share prices. This downturn is largely attributed to growing investor concerns about the potential disruptive impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the traditional insurance business model. - read more

Rising Premiums Challenge Australian Insurers in 2026 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In 2026, Australian insurers are grappling with significant challenges as premium affordability becomes a pressing concern. A recent survey by Gallagher Bassett highlights that 70% of insurers have reported increased claim costs and frequencies over the past year. This surge is largely attributed to escalating climate-related losses and inflationary pressures affecting materials and labour costs. - read more

AI-Driven Cyber Insurance Now Available for Australian SMEs 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a significant development for Australian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Zurich has partnered with US-based cyber insurance specialist Cowbell to introduce an AI-driven cyber insurance product tailored for businesses with annual turnovers up to $100 million. This collaboration marks a pivotal step in enhancing cyber resilience among Australian SMEs. - read more

AFCA Rules in Favor of Restaurant in Arson Insurance Dispute 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a landmark decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has directed an insurer to honor an arson-related claim for a restaurant, despite the non-disclosure of the director's criminal history during the policy's inception. This ruling underscores the complexities surrounding disclosure obligations and the interpretation of policy terms. - read more