Originally Posted by
wombat watcher
If that is the case their case is probably open and shut but why are they suing Qfsuper?
Qfsuper doesn’t provide Loss of Income protection.
Wombat Watcher,
After 40 odd posts on this thread, the only poster who has confused the conversation by refering to mainline EBA LOL benefits is you... more than once now.
It appears that you confused about the difference between that and the various private “Loss of Income Insurance” policies that many pilots take out, and spend many thousands of dollars per year doing so.
I am not going to accuse you of being an angel or sciolist at this time. I will leave that for the readers to decide. I will assume for now that you are confused.
If I may re-direct you to the news article under discussion, there is no dispute between EBA LOL benefits and QF Super benefits.
The dispute is between private Loss of Income Insurance benefits and QF Super benefits.
The concern, in particular, by my interpretation, is that if I already have a QF Super benefit of for example $1M, why would I be paying an additional for example $5K per annum for private Loss of Income Insurance, if at the end of the day all it is doing is offsetting the insurance I already had with QF Super.
My interpretation is that it is not about what insurance premiums I may or not have paid (directly or indirectly) to QF Super, it is about the fact that QF Super clearly told me I was insured for a TPD benefit of say $1M (the underwriting being their problem and the premiums obviously deducted from the very large fees taken annualy from my QF Super account), but from the fact that they did not disclose that if I was to pay many extra thousands of dollars per year for “Loss of Income Insurance” (which may or may not have also qualified for their TPD benefit) then a dollar for dollar ofsett would apply, which if I had known, might have significantly affected my choice of private insurance cover.
Mainline EBA LOL lump sums that may be payable have not, that I have read, remotely come into this equation as offsettable. Why do you keep referring to them when the converstation is obviously about something else?
If you can articulate your superior knowledge on the subject, I’m sure we’d all be grateful.
Regards, Fred