WELCOME to the Winter edition of ReB
We have a very informative edition for you this time around.
Here’s a synopsis of the line up…..
How could I not lead with the implementation of the Financial Services Council (FSC), Life Insurance Code of Practice (The Code or Life Code) on 1 July 2017. For those of you who are not familiar with the Life Code, it is best described as a commitment by all Life Insurance companies in Australia to principles that are designed to protect the consumer. Compliancy covers all aspects of a consumer’s relationship with their insurer from buying insurance, to making a claim and through to providing options to those experiencing financial hardship or requiring additional support. To read the Life Code in full and to view the FSC members that are bound by it, please click here.
Continuing with the Life Code theme, eReports has written a timely article for ReB: “Technological innovation: Helping Insurers meet the Life Code requirement around IME Choice”. They have kindly provided a second article covering the delicate topic of mental health claims in the self-described title: “Technological innovation: Helping Insurers meet the demands of mental health claims.”
“Why Evidence-Based Medicine” (EBM) provides an intriguing insight into the widely adopted electronic guideline tool in American workers compensation – and other countries. One of the main objectives of the EBM is to achieve better and more predictable results for the majority of patients. The article concludes with mlcoa’s Executive General Manager, Adam Goldberger who answers two follow-up questions.
Modernising the Insurance Contracts Act of 1984 has been a hot topic in Life Insurance for more years than I care to remember. There has been recent amendments as explained in: “Section 29 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 – The New Regime”. Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers break down the reasons behind each change.
Moray & Agnew Lawyers have kindly provided a must-read landmark Income Protection judgment “Fenton vs AIA Australia Ltd”:
- on 26 May 2017, the County Court of Victoria dismissed a plaintiff’s claim for income protection benefits under a ‘one duty’ definition;
- it is only the second time that a life insurer has successfully defended a disability claim in the County Court for over two decades and;
- the judgement provides some important take away points in relation to defending claims involving medical conditions which are largely assessed by the plaintiff’s subjective reporting of symptoms.
In addition to above, we have our regular column updates and a wrap-up of the 2017 ALUCA Executive Leaders Forum held at Taronga Zoo.
Thank you as always to our contributors and I really hope you enjoy this Winter edition of ReB
Comment and discuss this article with other industry professionals in the ALUCA Linked-In group