policy – OLHI – Free, impartial help with your life & health insurance complaints

When Jim found out he had stage one prostate cancer, he submitted an insurance claim.

His insurer denied the claim, saying stage one prostate cancer was not covered by his Critical Illness insurance policy.

When Jim received his insurer’s final position letter, he came to OLHI.

Our complaints team reviewed the case and learned that stage one prostate cancer was, in fact, not covered by Jim’s policy. But we also learned that Jim had never received this information from the company.

When his Critical Illness coverage started, the company had sent Jim a one-page document outlining his policy. It did not include information about what illnesses the policy did not cover.

Usually, when a consumer purchases insurance, the company will send a package of information with all the policy details. OLHI’s review discovered the company never sent Jim the fulfilment package due to administrative error.

As a result, OLHI believed Jim had a reasonable expectation that his prostate cancer should be covered.

We contacted his insurer and recommended it reconsider paying Jim’s claim, given the administrative error and reasonable doubt that Jim knew his type of cancer was not covered.

As a gesture of good faith, the insurer agreed to pay the claim.

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

Harold B. suffered a severe health problem related to his kidneys and had to have one removed. Worried about his clients, Harold returned to his job as soon as he felt able after the surgery.

When Harold returned to work, he had to periodically reduce his work hours and was never able to work full-time again because of his health. Nearly two years later, Harold quit his job and submitted a total disability claim to his individual disability insurance provider.

The insurance company denied the claim, even after Harold appealed the decision. At this point, Harold came to the OmbudService for Life and Health Insurance.

OLHI reviewed the complaint and learned:

  • Harold’s policy only covered losses for “total disability.”
  • He had returned to work part-time and before he completed the waiting period required by his policy.
  • Harold submitted his final claim after the policy deadline.
  • The insurer’s decision strictly followed the policy’s terms, but the company could have communicated the process earlier and more clearly to Harold.

As OLHI cannot consider damages or extenuating circumstances outside of insurance policy, we advised Harold to consider pursuing his complaint in court with a disability lawyer.

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

Mrs. U. purchased life insurance in 2006. She explained to her agent that she only wanted a policy that would cover her for 10 years and that she planned to cancel when the term expired. She said she would not be able to afford the new premiums, which would rise dramatically after 10 years.

Mrs. U.’s agent explained that a renewal notice would arrive in the mail but that she would call her before the policy was up for renewal, to confirm her intention to cancel.

In 2016, the policy’s 10-year term expired. Mrs. U. did not receive a phone call. Instead, her policy automatically renewed and higher premiums were taken out of her bank account. She contacted the insurance company and asked to cancel her life insurance policy and be reimbursed the cost of the new premiums.

Mrs. U.’s insurance company declined her request to be reimbursed. Its final position letter outlined that a renewal notice had been sent to her and she did not respond, so the policy was automatically renewed.

Mrs. U. brought this letter to OLHI for a review of her complaint. OLHI’s Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) asked her and the insurance company to send all their documents relevant to this case. In his review, the DRO studied the policy contract and also learned from Mrs. U. that she had not expected the policy to automatically renew. She thought that if she did not renew, it would lapse.

OLHI’s DRO recommended that an OmbudService Officer (OSO) further review the contract language in Mrs. U.’s policy. The OSO discovered unclear wording about policy renewal. It implied that consumers had a choice – leading them to believe their approval was required ahead of renewal. The legal principle of contra proferentem dictates that unclear language allows for consumers’ interpretations of the contract.

The OSO recommended that Mrs. U. be reimbursed the majority of the premiums. Because the renewed policy was in force and would have paid out had she died, he recommended it was not possible to reimburse 100%. Mrs. U. and the insurance company agreed.

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

Mr. F. had a term life insurance policy through this former employer, which also covered his wife as a dependent. On his 75th birthday, his coverage ended. He confirmed with the insurance company’s call centre that his wife’s coverage would continue because she was not yet 75. Not long thereafter, the company clarified that this particular policy had ended – but that there was an option to convert Mrs. F.’s coverage to an individual policy.

The insurance company explained that his wife’s policy had to be for a minimum of $50,000. However, Mr. F. wanted his terminated policy for $5,000 extended to his wife since she was not yet 75. When the insurance company denied his request, he brought the final position letter to OLHI and requested an independent review of his case.

OLHI’s Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) read the insurance policy contract, which did outline that once coverage ended, the insurance company could issue an individual policy for an amount that did not exceed the old policy. For this reason, the DRO recommended the case be escalated to an OmbudService Officer (OSO) for further investigation.

After careful, thorough review, the OSO discovered that Mr. F. was confused about what a policy conversion entailed. He explained to Mr. F. that insurance coverage through an employer is known as “temporary insurance.” Once temporary insurance terminates, the policyholder has the option to convert that policy into an individual insurance policy. However, this conversion is not what Mr. F. was looking for; instead, he wanted his temporary insurance to continue until his wife turned 75. However, his policy stated that once the policyholder turned 75, all coverage for himself as well as his dependents would end.

As a result, the OSO maintained the insurance company’s decision.

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

Thirty years ago, Mrs. B. purchased life insurance. The premium would change over the years and the cash surrender value would be flexible but, as she understood it, she was guaranteed a paid-up $200,000 policy at age 65. This original policy was subsequently transferred to several insurers over the years.

When she turned 65, Mrs. B. received a letter informing her that her policy was now paid up; no more premiums were necessary to maintain the value of $200,000 and to keep her policy in force. Mrs. B. stopped making payments but, several years later, received a letter advising that her policy was now valued at $158,000.

Although no further premiums were required to keep the policy in force, the insurer stated that the sum insured continued to be reviewed for adjustment. Mrs. B. disagreed and contacted OLHI for a free, independent and impartial review of her file. She provided us with the final position letter and copies of all her correspondence with the various insurers that had owned the policy over the years. We also received the current insurer’s file.

OLHI’s first impression was that there would likely be no grounds to negotiate as the decrease in the sum insured was likely contractual.

However, OLHI’s Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) discovered that Mrs. B. had a letter from the original insurer, guaranteeing in writing the sum insured of $200,000, with no adjustments to that sum. For this reason, the complaint was escalated to an OmbudService Officer (OSO) for further investigation.

Speaking with the insurer, the OSO concurred that the policy clearly outlines the recalculations of the premiums and the fact that the sum could change after age 65. However, he also noted that the guarantee letter could not be overlooked. The insurer, after additional review, agreed to honour the commitment that the previous insurer had made, confirming that the sum insured would not be recalculated in future.

 

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

By continuing your navigation on this site, you accept the use of cookies.

These are designed to improve your user experience on our site by collecting traffic statistics and information on your behaviour.

More information on our Privacy Policy