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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

exactly, these guys are just trying it on.

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.

[QUOTE=Duck Pilot;10240090]

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.

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.

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.

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

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 shouldn’t 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?

Did they actually pay an extra premium?

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

I don’t 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 bull**** that any other can, including defrauding it’s clients so long as it doesn’t get caugtht. It’s profits flow to Qantas. Any more questions?

Derfred,
What absolute rubbish.. Qfsuper doesn’t 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.

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.

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.