Why does law pertaining to disclosure apply differently to the insurer, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the insured?
Someone applying for insurance must disclose anything that may be relevant: existing illness, prior illnesses, criminal convictions etc.
The insurer, however, does not need to disclose previous "convictions" (penalties imposed by Regulators)
The FSA, pretends that many of its previously "convicted" members have no disciplinary record.
Why is this allowed by law?
Thanks
I wasn't aware that criminal convictions had to be notified to an insurer - apart from for motor insurance possibly, depending on what the conviction was for.
You seem to be quoting a law that requires you to tell insurers things. There's no law about it.
Re previous illnesses, would you life insure someone if you didn't have any idea of his state of health?
Rob Graham
Thank for that Robin, you are quite right of course. There is no such law. There is certainly disparity, however, regarding the level of disclosure deemed acceptable from the various groups: public, financial services operators and regulators.
Insurers reasonably demand full disclosure of anything that may be relevant (sometimes very tenuously relevant). The applicant must even disclose information which not specifically asked for if it is relevant, and indeed an insurer is quite rightly entitled to void any contract upon discovery of such non-disclosure.
An applicant for insurance or a prospective investor should be equally entitled to be informed of anything which may have a bearing on their decision to do business with a company. There is no obligation on the insurance company to inform the prospective client of any relevant disciplinary history. Would you want to insure or invest with a company which has a record of cheating its clients?
The Financial Services Authority does not disclose any disciplinary actions by previous regulators. Isn't that exactly like a G.P. failing to disclose a patient's medical history prior to his own involvement with that patient?
It just seems strange that in a climate where the public clearly doesn't trust the financial services industry, that the regulator and those it allegedly regulates are still being less than honest.
We were promised "Super SIB", we were ripped off again.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required