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

Surging Insurance Costs Pose Challenges for Australian Retirees 08 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori Recent reports indicate a significant increase in insurance premiums across Australia, with some policies experiencing hikes of up to 18%. This surge is placing considerable financial pressure on retirees, many of whom are on fixed incomes and find it challenging to accommodate these rising costs. - read more

AMA Calls for Urgent Reforms in Private Health Insurance Sector 08 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has released a report indicating that private health insurance is increasingly failing to deliver value for money. The report highlights that premiums have risen sharply, outpacing inflation and wage growth, while nearly 70% of policies now contain exclusions for specific treatments or conditions. - read more

APRA Freezes Unjustified Premium Hikes in Commercial Auto Insurance 07 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has recently implemented emergency measures to address significant premium increases in the commercial auto insurance sector. This intervention comes in response to widespread industry concerns over substantial rate hikes that threaten the financial stability of transport operators across the nation. - read more

Federal Court Upholds Denial of Truck Driver's Insurance Claim 07 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a recent legal development, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by a logging truck driver, Mr. Bradley Henschke, concerning his insurance claim through the Australian Retirement Trust. The case, Henschke v Australian Retirement Trust [2026] FCA 80, highlights the critical importance of understanding the specifics of insurance coverage within superannuation accounts. - read more