Can life insurance refuse to pay? Failing to reveal this habit could see claim REFUSED | Personal Finance | Finance

0
6


Life insurance policies can mean dependant adults or children have some financial security upon the policy-holder’s death. But, it may be that an insurance provider refuses to pay out, should the individual have been a smoker, but had not told the insurer. According to research by Money Super Market, the cost of a life insurance premium could be 50 per cent more expensive for someone who smokes. According to MoneySuperMarket data taken between January and November 2018, the non-smokers will pay an average of £9.96 per month for a decreasing term life insurance policy.

Meanwhile, a smoker would pay £21 on average – an increase of 111 per cent.

MoneySuperMarket explains that insurers will assume that the application is truthful, but should they suspect “anything is amiss”, they can request for a urine or saliva test be carried out, in order to determine whether the application is a smoker.

This could also include contacting the policyholder’s GP for more information on their medical history.

“The insurer may also investigate if you make a claim on the policy,” the price comparison giant said.

“For instance, the coroner’s report might attribute death to a smoking-related illness.”

It goes on to advise that had a person concealed their tendency to smoke, then it could mean that they decline to pay out.

MoneySuperMarket said: “If you have concealed your habit from the insurer, the policy is then unlikely to pay out, which could place those who may benefit from the policy in financial difficulty.”

It also highlights that insurers do not tend to make any distinctions between certain tobacco products.

This includes cigarettes, cigars, pipes, nicotine replacement products, and E-cigarettes.

From life insurance to pet insurance – is it necessary to take out an insurance policy for an animal living in your home?

One person has shared their story after a chance decision to insure their pet saved them hundreds of pounds.

The cat owner wrote on a Mumsnet thread about their experience with pet insurance.

Explaining that they hadn’t insured their other two cats, they had decided to insure the third furry friend – although they weren’t aware of their reason for doing so.

It later emerged that the cat had epilepsy – with medication costing £113 per month.

They paid £70 in excess each year, but with the insurance costing £14 per month, they saved money overall.

This meant that their outgoings for the cat’s medical treatment cost them £238 per year – rather than £1256.

The pet owner added: “Which, we wouldn’t have been able to afford.”



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here