PDA

View Full Version : Former QF Pilots sue QF Super


neville_nobody
2nd Sep 2018, 09:38
Poor form on behalf of the insurance company, you pay the fees then they accuse you of 'double dipping' when its time to pay up.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/former-qantas-pilots-lose-close-to-1-million-each-in-insurance-claim-20180831-p5013p.html

dragon man
2nd Sep 2018, 10:14
Very interesting, I had a claim against Qantas super for which they claimed was in the trust deed, when I asked for it they produced some other excuse . I put a very aggressive solicitor onto them and they quickly rolled over. Good luck gentleman.

Capt Fathom
2nd Sep 2018, 10:26
Looks like the standard scenario of Insurance Companies doing whatever they can do to drive you into the ground and reduce their liability.
They are absolute crooks!

wombat watcher
2nd Sep 2018, 12:06
Looks like the standard scenario of Insurance Companies doing whatever they can do to drive you into the ground and reduce their liability.
They are absolute crooks!

Fathom,
do yourself a favour and don’t comment about a subject you know absolutely nothing about. You have just missed a golden opportunity not show your ignorance.

Seabreeze
2nd Sep 2018, 12:15
So Wombat Watcher, what is your position on this, and who pays your salary?

wombat watcher
2nd Sep 2018, 12:24
So Wombat Watcher, what is your position on this, and who pays your salary?

no one pays my salary. I dont have one.
questions:
Are these guys mainline or other? If other,their employer may give them money to buy their LOL.
Who did they buy their LOL from?
Qf is a self insurer when it comes to comes to mainline LOL
No mainline pilot pays a premium for LOL
Did they get paid LO L capital benefit?
If mainline why didn’t AIPA pursue their issues?
If they were AFAP ( likely to be not mainline) why didn’t AFAP pursue their issues?
Why do they need to turn to ambulance chasers to pursue their issues?

In summary they may have an open and shut case that they have been ripped off. However when people come in and make comments the problem is due to crooked insurance companies, in this case they don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

mattyj
2nd Sep 2018, 12:26
Iíd guess most people have got an insurance story or two that would at least partially corroborate the crook description

Bull at a Gate
2nd Sep 2018, 13:10
Not quite sure what the story is here - you can’t claim twice for the same loss. If I drive into my garage with my bicycle on the roof rack (don’t ask how I know this can be done) I can’t claim from both my motor vehicle insurer and my home insurer for the damage to my garage door. If the income protection insurer is paying until age 60, then it stands to reason that the TPD insurer shouldn’t have to cover the same loss of income. And no, I am not paid by an insurance company.

SeenItAll
2nd Sep 2018, 13:17
It's been my experience that insurance SOP is to tend to deny initial claims because many claimants will then give up -- even if their claim is meritorious. Continuing to press then brings a better result.

josephfeatherweight
2nd Sep 2018, 13:51
Not quite sure what the story is here - you can’t claim twice for the same loss.
You can buy as much insurance from different sources for the same thing as you want AND expect to be paid out accordingly by each provider, should the situation merit it. Provided there is no offset clause in your policy.

Bull at a Gate
2nd Sep 2018, 13:56
No, insurance is for a loss. If you are paid by insurer A you cannot claim from insurer B as once you have been paid there is no loss.

checked_and_set
2nd Sep 2018, 17:48
If these blokes held two income protection policies then obviously one of the providers would not pay out, thatís the law and itís clear cut. However in this case they held TPD alongside their income protection which is a completely separate product to income protection and can be paid out whilst receiving payments from your income protection insurer. Many income protection policies include the option of adding on TPD for an extra fee. What this case boils down to is disclosure; was this clause included in the PDS at the time of taking out the cover and can it be proved.

neville_nobody
2nd Sep 2018, 22:07
No, insurance is for a loss. If you are paid by insurer A you cannot claim from insurer B as once you have been paid there is no loss.
Whilst this case is about the PDS, if you had two policies because of limits in the amount of payout in one of them, and your total payout was less than what you reasonably would have earned what is the insurance companies argument? I highly doubt that any Loss of License/ Income Protection insurance would actually pay the amount of money you would have earnt otherwise. QF pilots over 10 years would be looking at $2 Mil+ payouts and more if they were Captains.

dragon man
3rd Sep 2018, 00:23
As I understand it Qantas super are denying a claim based upon the trust deed however their problem is it wasn’t in the trust deed at the time these two took out additional insurance. That would mean they are trying to change the rules after the game has started.

Don Diego
3rd Sep 2018, 00:38
The offset is a very common clause in such financial products and simply, if it was not there, then these fellows will win with interest, if it was there but buried somewhere in a 100 page document then the Judge will decide on whether or not a "reasonable" person could be expected to find it. If they had an accountant or financial advisor the second case may be difficult.

parabellum
3rd Sep 2018, 01:39
I’d guess most people have got an insurance story or two that would at least partially corroborate the crook description

In their eyes possibly, but the majority of disappointed claimants are guilty of not reading the small print in their policy or failing to disclose essential information. The initial proposal may well have included the question, "Do you hold any other insurance policy to cover this risk?" "If your answer is 'YES' please read note 1.2.34 etc. etc." The note may then go on to discuss the possibilities of holding an insurance policy that doesn't cut in until after the first policy limit is reached. Buying layers of insurance is not uncommon where high values are concerned. Two policies covering the identical level of loss are not normally allowed. In the long term it pays to use a broker, they get paid by the Underwriter but work for the insured.

Dee Vee
3rd Sep 2018, 05:02
Poor form on behalf of the insurance company, you pay the fees then they accuse you of 'double dipping' when its time to pay up.


Seems to be a media beatup, everyone knows you can't claim for the same event twice on 2 different insurance policies.

Same as taking out two home insurance policies and claiming it from them both if it burns down.

Dee Vee
3rd Sep 2018, 05:05
Not quite sure what the story is here - you canít claim twice for the same loss.

exactly, these guys are just trying it on.

pilotchute
3rd Sep 2018, 05:13
I think the issue here is that it wasn't made clear that you couldn't (misleading). TPD and income protection are different insurance policies for different events.

​​​​​​The fact that they changed the PDS is a sign they screwed up.

Dee Vee
3rd Sep 2018, 05:16
TPD and income protection are different insurance policies for different events.

I don't think any reasonable person would think they can claim both those things at the same time, as you say, they are different events.

C441
3rd Sep 2018, 07:33
Moral of the story? Look very closely at the detail of that very costly Loss of Licence/Income policy you pay a substantial premium for each year.
You may well be paying a premium for something that you have little hope of making a successful claim on, or at best will have your payout substantially reduced by other policies provided from other sources.
As mentioned above, professional, independent advice is worth every dollar in this field.

tdracer
3rd Sep 2018, 07:35
Looks like the standard scenario of Insurance Companies doing whatever they can do to drive you into the ground and reduce their liability.
They are absolute crooks!

Disclaimer that I'm not in Oz, but my experience has been just the opposite - my insurance claims have all been handled fairly and graciously. Even to the extent of coverage that was technically beyond the requirements of the 'fine print'.
Maybe you just need to look beyond price when selecting your insurance?

Capt Fathom
3rd Sep 2018, 07:49
Maybe you just need to look beyond price when selecting your insurance?
Maybe I need to move to Washington State! :}

V-Jet
3rd Sep 2018, 07:52
C441: I’ve never read the detail in a single insurance policy I’ve taken out, but am broad brush abreast of the mortgage documents I sign and consider myself fairly sophisticated in such things. In the last 5 years I have been ripped off (NO other word for it) by ANZ in Oz and one private contract overseas to the tune of AUD$400k in straight out fees - and that’s nothing compared to the losses and tax ANZ forced me to pay by liquidating rolled gold assets to satisfy their ‘unadvertised’ but seriously enforceable debt service ratios. With expensive lawyers we got close to what they were up to but the ‘intent’ of the documents we signed escaped us.

If ‘they’ set out to get you, they can and will.

CurtainTwitcher
3rd Sep 2018, 07:57
Maybe you just need to look beyond price when selecting your insurance?
Problem is, there is no choice in "purchasing" this insurance product! What is the premium? Not disclosed if far as I can see.
Standard Insurance Cover / Standard Insurance Benefit As a member of Divisions 1, 2 or 3, you are automatically covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week for death, disablement and Terminal Illness until your Superannuation Date. This automatic cover is known as Standard Insurance Cover. Standard Insurance Cover is part of a package of benefits for members, so you are not able to decline, change or cancel the cover.

page 23 https://www.qantassuper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Disclosure_Defined-benefit-supplement.pdf

But page 13 states
Minimum investment amount. The minimum investment amount required to invest in the Term Deposit option is $5,000 (each time you wish to invest in this option). You’ll also need to leave a minimum of $5,000 in your MIC option. This is required for any regular deductions from your account e.g. for fees and insurance premiums

Intriguing...

For anyone wanting to poke around the historical documents, copies are conveniently available back to 2003: ARCHIVED Qantas Superannuation pages (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.qantassuper.com.au/), might be of some help or interest.

Square Bear
3rd Sep 2018, 11:08
Duck,

from what I have read this is a little more involved than just simply just having a LOL policy.

Perhaps don't worry too much, but do definitely read the fine print... ask questions, and require answers in writing.

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 11:14
[QUOTE=Duck Pilot;10240090]I really feel for these 2 pilots as this could happen to anyone of us.

I’m on the other side of 40 and have LOL, a young family and all the the financial stresses and I always believed that my LOL will get me and my family out of a bind should my health pack up. I’m having second thoughts now and I will certainly be getting into the fine print.

I have absolutely no doubt that these 2 pilots would have not went to the media if they didn’t believe they were treated unfairly.[QUOTE]


Duck,
This is not about whether they have been paid their LOL.
In Qf mainline by virtue of their employment contract, a pilot gets automatic LOL coverage without medical exclusions, currently worth in excess of $1,000,000 at no cost to the pilot.Who else gets that coverage? Also, if the Qf mainline pilot hasn’t opted out of Qf super altogether they get coverage for total and permanent disability like any other Qf employee and member ( no premium paid). A number of Qf pilots also pay an extra policy for income protection or perhaps even LOL coverage at the own expense and option.
Within the Qf mainline administration the result is that if a mainline pilot loses their licence medically and are paid the LOL capital benefit, when the trustee( board) is considering eligibility for total and permanent disability payment, if the LOL capital benefit is paid, the pilot doesn’t get an extra equivalent amount. If in some cases the super benefit exceeds the LOL amount( highly unlikely) the difference maybe paid.
i think this is the question being tested here.
The question may well be that the optional extra coverage is being tested but I don’t think so on the information available. I am convinced that if this was the case AIPA would be pursuing the case , not ambulance chasers.
The Qfsuper CEO denies the pilots paid a premium for their disputed coverage.

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 11:50
Fact is that the fine print HOOKs of these bloody insurance policies that we are paying absorbed premiums for must be articulated in clear plan English with common examples.

If Qantas underwrite this insurance, shame on them. I wish there was an alternative airline to use......

If airlines started treating staff with respect financially, opposed to appeasing their stakeholders, the airlines would be in a lot better shape, not that there is currently s PILOT SHORTAGE!






they don’t underwrite. They self insure. They carry the risk. Why don’t you pause on passing comment on something you obviously dont understand.

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 11:53
The LOL insurers refused to continue with the Qf LOL because there were too many claims paid out. Qf had no option but to self insure.

Capt Fathom
3rd Sep 2018, 12:07
They aren’t talking about Loss of Licence LOL, they are talking about Loss of Income Protection and TPD.

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 12:17
They aren’t talking about Loss of Licence LOL, they are talking about Loss of Income Protection and TPD.



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.

Capt Fathom
3rd Sep 2018, 12:34
From the Qantas Super Website:

Benefits of insurance through your super.

Types of Cover:

Income protection: can provide you with a monthly income if you become ill or injured

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 12:43
Ok, I am obviously confused!

Whatever, Iím obviously stupid and have no idea, I will now go and cry in my cave!!!!

No wonder mental health issues effect pilots.......................

So much for looking after fellow PILOTS who certainly require some help and encouragement!


duck, they are alleging that they paid for a loss of income policy for which they are being denied a claim.
until the details come out that may or may not be true.
it is not as simple as buying an insurance policy for your house and being denied a claim on some sort of technicality.
if someone has a mental health issue about that, maybe they shouldnít be flying an aircraft.
do you think that someone who has free travel insurance on one Amex card and free travel insurance on a separate Amex card and claims for one travel issue should be paid twice? Even if he is a fellow pilot or even a mate?

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 12:45
From the Qantas Super Website:

Benefits of insurance through your super.

Types of Cover:

Income protection: can provide you with a monthly income if you become ill or injured



Did they actually pay an extra premium?

Dunda
3rd Sep 2018, 13:48
What ever the outcome, I want to thank these two guys for raising awareness of such an important issue. I will certainly be closely reviewing my qantas super policy and my decision to remain with them.

Derfred
3rd Sep 2018, 15:01
If that is the case their case is probably open and shut but why are they suing Qfsuper?
Qfsuper doesnít 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 ďLoss of Income InsuranceĒ 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 ďLoss of Income InsuranceĒ (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, Iím sure weíd all be grateful.

Regards, Fred

harrryw
3rd Sep 2018, 16:13
Can QANTAS legally offer insurance in Australia. If not can it rely in insurance law and practices to limit promised benefits?

Derfred
3rd Sep 2018, 16:19
Can QANTAS legally offer insurance in Australia. If not can it rely in insurance law and practices to limit promised benefits?
I donít understand your question, harry.

As far as I understand it, Qantas owns Qantas Super. Qantas Super is a (private) super fund like any other, that can engage in all the financial bullshit that any other can, including defrauding itís clients so long as it doesnít get caugtht. Itís profits flow to Qantas. Any more questions?

wombat watcher
3rd Sep 2018, 22:55
I donít understand your question, harry.

As far as I understand it, Qantas owns Qantas Super. Qantas Super is a (private) super fund like any other, that can engage in all the financial bullshit that any other can, including defrauding itís clients so long as it doesnít get caugtht. Itís profits flow to Qantas. Any more questions?
Derfred,
What absolute rubbish.. Qfsuper doesnít make profits. It makes returns on investments from which expenses are deducted, and the benefits are passed on to members as returns according to which division they are in. The only benefit Qf gets from the running of Qfsuper is an indirect one, in that if Qfsuper investments perform well, Qf has less money to put in to fund payouts to those members who are in division 3 which is a defined benefits scheme.

Beer Baron
4th Sep 2018, 03:22
Wombat Watcher, you have responded to Derfred’s most recent post but have seemingly chosen to ignore all the very pertinent points that he laid out in post #41. Do you have a response to it?

As to your repeated assertion that the case must not have merit if AIPA are not running it, that is not correct, AIPA have been providing assistance with the matter for a significant period of time.

Bull at a Gate
4th Sep 2018, 03:57
The two pilots did not go to the media, or raise awareness of the issue. Their lawyers did, probably for the free advertising that such stories generate.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
4th Sep 2018, 04:47
The unfortunate crossover is that the Loss of Income insurance, which is intended to provide you with (usually) 70-75% of your income if you are temporarily (Ie not totally and permanently) prevented from earning your usual income, is allowed to be taken out as a policy with a term out to your retirement age (if you wish to pay such a premium). A lot of people have LoI insurance. I used to have it, because that policy would kick in after 30 days, and my ability to access my super in event of hardship would not kick in for 90 days, and I needed something to cover the gap. When my Insurer altered the conditions to a 90 day waiting period, I dropped it as I was paying for no additional benefit I wasn't getting through my super. I also have TPD provisions in my super, which kick in if I can no longer work ever. They are two different things.

wombat watcher
4th Sep 2018, 09:21
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1500x2000/fd4ee52d_edf3_4e7f_952b_3b95c3702a62_3287b05b8354bf860944c55 5a4131073e15adcb4.png

wombat watcher
4th Sep 2018, 09:28
The question is whether this information was readily available in 2014 and whether that mattered.

If there was a good case it is my opinion that AIPA would have run it in the courts because it affects a lot of Qf pilots.

The Qf mainline LOL coverage is one such offsettable amount.
I'm not sure whether or not payment of total and permanent disablement benefits are at the discretion of the Trustee (the Board) or not. I know the death benefit is discretionary.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
4th Sep 2018, 14:19
everyone knows you can't claim for the same event twice on 2 different insurance policies.
You can have two (or more) different life insurance policies, and they can all pay in full if you die, provided all the terms, conditions and disclosure conditions have been met.
Seems to be a media beatup, everyone knows you can't claim for the same event twice on 2 different insurance policies.

Same as taking out two home insurance policies and claiming it from them both if it burns down.

Asset insurance seems to be different. You can have as many different house/car/boat policies as you want to pay premiums for, and claim on all of them, but you must disclose this fact to each of them, and the total pay out from all of them will only be to the value of your house/car/boat, ie they will all offset against each other.

Duck Pilot
4th Sep 2018, 21:40
Hopefully the outcome will be good for all parties including Qantas. Itís sad to read about these kind of issues, itís a tough world out there.

Take care and all the best.

Beer Baron
5th Sep 2018, 02:21
The question is whether this information was readily available in 2014 and whether that mattered.
This is precisely the point of the case. The information provided by QF Super at the time these two pilots made their insurance decisions did NOT include offsetting provisions. After the fact when this was brought to QF Super’s attention they changed the document.

Since then with the revised guidance material and an awareness campaign the potential for others to be similarly disadvantaged has been mitigated. Hence the following statement is incorrect;
If there was a good case it is my opinion that AIPA would have run it in the courts because it affects a lot of Qf pilots.

das Uber Soldat
5th Sep 2018, 02:43
The question is whether this information was readily available in 2014 and whether that mattered.

If there was a good case it is my opinion that AIPA would have run it in the courts because it affects a lot of Qf pilots.

The Qf mainline LOL coverage is one such offsettable amount.
I'm not sure whether or not payment of total and permanent disablement benefits are at the discretion of the Trustee (the Board) or not. I know the death benefit is discretionary.
You still haven't addressed post #37 champ.