Insurance

Support and criticism for Cigna move from unlikely sources

Thursday 29th of March 2012

 


Former Life Brokers Association (LBA) president Ron Flood applauded Cigna’s move, saying it would make more people aware of the product and encourage more people to get cover.

Flood was also critical of advice industry attacks.

“The problem is we’ve got too many brokers and advisers, AFAs, RFAs, that think they’re the be all and end all and they’ve got a God given right to be the only ones to write business.”

He also said the increased awareness would actually be beneficial to advisers.

“It’s free marketing for us, the more people out there promoting the business, writing the business, the more opportunities are created for us.”

Even if an existing customer opted to change their cover to Cigna, Flood said that in itself presented an opportunity for the adviser.

“We always have an opportunity. Every time somebody rings up a company to cancel their policy they notify the adviser that they’re going to cancel their policy. I know straight away if somebody is sniffing at the door and I can decide whether I want to keep this client and get out and see them straight away.”

He said he then has the option to meet the client, “sit down and talk about it and I’ll show them why they shouldn’t go with Cigna.”

He also dismissed critics who claim the product is too complex to be sold online, conceding that while income protection is a complicated product, “you don’t have to be a rocket scientist.”

Interestingly, criticism for the move – and support for the advice channel - came from online life insurance provider Des Morgan, founder of Insurance4Me.

“It’s too difficult to do online, it’s a lot more technical and there’s a lot more information you need to get income cover, so I wouldn’t consider it,” Morgan said.

“Income protection could be a can of worms, I think people really need advice, there’s too many options available.”

Comments (3)
Simon Rule
Once again we see an association head (former) wade into a debate and show just how little they do actually understand about the industry they represent. Mr Flood - The criticism been leveled at Cigna from advisers has nothing to do with a "a God given right to be the only ones to write business" It's actually born of a genuine and sincere belief that providing a client with income cover online (and for 2 years only) is totally inappropriate. Interesting to see Des Morgan founder of online life insurance provider Insurance4Me agreeing that clients need to see an adviser when securing income cover.
0 0
12 years ago

Ron Flood
Great to see we have generated some robust debate around this subject. As you can see I never post under a non-de-plume. I find it interesting that the most vociferous comments are always made by anonymous posters. The reference to my being Past President of the LBA was not necessary as this was my personal view and most who follow these posts will know who I am. The message is clear. CIGNA are targeting a market off DIY clients who don't or won't use an adviser. These client's will most likely have no income protection cover at all and will most likely to not have considered it until seeing the advertisements. You are totally correct that the product may not be the best option for a majority of those taking it out but that is a decision the client makes. It gives us all a great opportunity if we ever stumble across one of CIGNA's client's to advise them of more appropriate solutions. Remember, the wrong cover in place is better than no cover in place.
0 0
12 years ago

Mark Ogden
I suppose the whole debate is a double edged sword. Cuts both ways, if a client takes this cover and it pays out they are better off than with nothing, without advice it isn't going to work as well as a product chosen from dozens of products and tailored for their needs. We could get upset by the raft of products that leave people exposed sold as direct market(DM) products. Already banks sell ridiculous products under the guise of IP and if you download or get hold of the policy documents it is not hard to show the advantages of proper advice. One bank product for example has a disability product that excludes natural disasters, show them that exclusion now and they can't thank you enough. I agree in part with Ron to a point that any cover is better than nothing, demonstrates a clients understanding of the need for protection and probably wouldn't have considered advice or cover before. However it frustrates me that people believe they have cover and we all know how limited or challenging it could be to claim on. Direct marketed life and trauma products also have nonsensical exclusions and limitations and what is annoying to me is that people believe they have good protection, not that no one else should sell it. Some products just shouldn't be out there, i.e. Life Insurance that excludes terrorism, riots etc. I think Ron's statement “The problem is we’ve got too many brokers and advisers, AFAs, RFAs, that think they’re the be all and end all and they’ve got a God given right to be the only ones to write business.” is ridiculous and not based on soliciting anyone's opinion, maybe his personal feeling, but you can't stop it so make the best of it. It probably detracted from the debate. It's not about a God given right but knowing the solution I recommended will certainly be more robust than a product purchased as a DM product(which should have been the focus of the article). It's just about the best outcome for consumers at claim time and there is no one size fits all solution. But I applaud anyone who appreciates the value of their income and has taken steps to protect it, online or otherwise, I can work with that.
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.