Insurance

Insurer defends online income protection

Wednesday 21st of March 2012

Graeme Lindsay, who owns insurance analyst Strategy Financial Services, said income protection is a "minefield" due to a number of issues that consumers won't be aware of if they don't use the services of an adviser.

The most complex, he said, is the issue of offsets against whatever income the client is still earning at the time of the claim.

"What this means is, how much is the insurer actually going to pay you despite what it says on the policy?  The position of a comma can make a world of difference to what you actually get paid.

"Some insurers will say, ok, you're earning $100,000 a year and you're insured for $50,000 a year but you've still got ongoing income of $30,000 a year so we'll give you $20,000.  However, others will say, we'll give you three quarters of your loss up to a maximum, which would mean you would get the full $50,000," he explained.

 

Lindsay said advisers "add value" at both ends of the process, when applying for insurance and filing a claim, and buying online without the help of an adviser is "dangerous".

The increasing trend of offering insurance online is a result of "focus groups", he said.

"I think it's a reaction to this notion that Generation Y-ers will buy everything online.  These people will get what they paid for."

However, Cigna chief executive Gail Costa said customers wouldn't be at risk and the target market for the product - largely those who don't already have income protection - would have little overlap with the client base for insurance advisers.

"Those that are with brokers are going to go with brokers and aren't going to go online," she said.

"There are a number of New Zealanders without insurance despite the best efforts of advisers.  We did the research and we know it's top of the mind but people haven't done it."

She rejected the claim income protection insurance is too complex for people to do online.

"I come from a broker background and I don't know how complicated it [income protection] really is.  What is complicated is all the riders and understanding the definitions, so we've been trying to make it simpler for customers."

Costa also said brokers mainly sell products to age 65, which is more comprehensive but also more expensive; Cigna is offering two-year income protection policies which she said are more affordable.

"If you have something that keeps you off work for two years you'll probably be off work forever."

Comments (5)
Daryl McAlinden
"If you have something that keeps you off work for two years you'll probably be off work forever." Then what Gail? Will you direct the client to the Work & Income? Will a Gen-Yers have enough TPD cover to offset their loss of income? Will TPD pay out for a long term mental illness claim? Will you be disclosing these issues on your website?
0 0
12 years ago

Simon Rule
Well said Mac, Dirty Harry & Andy. Gail's own last statement in the article above makes a complete mockery of Cigna even advertising this product to begin with. I happened to see the Cigna ad again on TV last night and thought to myself "yeah great, income cover for two years and if I'm still not able to work then what??" There is a very good reason why if you were taking out an income protection policy with an insurer you'd want to have the benefit paid to age 65. There's also a very good reason why you'd source cover through an adviser (not online) to have the logic/wisdom of the above explained to you! I have seen examples recently where customers at banks have been sold TPD cover as an income protection benefit for only 2 years duration on the basis that it is "affordable". No doubt given the "sales" mentality that persists in branch banking nowadays the sales stats for the month will look great on someone's chart somewhere but are the best interests of the client being served? No.
0 0
12 years ago

Ray Storey
It seems to me this product is targeted at a segment none of you want anyway. Relax and carry on I say.
0 0
12 years ago

interested observer
How long before indecision and increased risk to the public from the misunderstanding or confusion of 'what is right' for the consumer leads to risk products inc. IP being re-classified to a Cat 1 product? Many providers and firms are applying those standards to their advice practice anyway, why not make it the standard and level the playing field? The propensity for getting risk insurance wrong is high, the effects of getting it wrong can be devastating, this product set deserves to be treated as higher risk - perhaps that will get the message across to those advisers or firms who believe that they can sail under the regulatory radar as 'it's only Cat 2'.
0 0
12 years ago

Michael King
Yes, Johnny, but that is a short-sighted analysis. Anyone, whether target market or not, who is poorly served by any entity promoting insurance, is bad for all of us, including those who do the job well. As Mark says, the likelihood of non-disclosure is so much higher, and therefore, down the track, declined claims will have impact on the broader community's view of the industry's credibility. The Life Direct ad, which I heard again yesterday, makes a BENEFIT of not having to "read all the paperwork" by buying online through them. Please... Cigna also sells life cover through Kiwibank. The online form does not even require disclosure of height & weight!
0 0
12 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.