Former QF Pilots sue QF Super

[neville_nobody]

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/work...31-p5013p.html

[dragon man]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

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]

So Wombat Watcher, what is your position on this, and who pays your salary?

[wombat watcher]

Originally Posted by Seabreeze

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]

I’d guess most people have got an insurance story or two that would at least partially corroborate the crook description

[Bull at a Gate]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If these blokes held two income protection policies then obviously one of the providers would not pay out, that’s the law and it’s 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]

Originally Posted by Bull at a Gate

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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]

Originally Posted by Bull at a Gate

Not quite sure what the story is here - you can’t claim twice for the same loss.

exactly, these guys are just trying it on.

[pilotchute]

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]

Originally Posted by pilotchute

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.