I was disappointed by Money Marketing's report of a meeting on April 2 between the ABI and Unum about their new critical-illness product.
There was certainly no battle between the ABI and Unum and I would like to put the record straight.
Unum asked to meet with the ABI to discuss the innovative product features in their new Cl product Elixia 123 and how they fitted in with the ABI statement of best practice.
The ABI agreed that flexible structures such as this could still comply and that the statement was not intended to hinder innovation.
Unum explained that their product was designed to ensure maximum customer choice but we jointly concluded that if policyholders had no cover in category three of the product, they might mistakenly think that they had a Cl policy with standard cover for heart attacks, cancer and stroke.
Unum have agreed that a minimum 10 per cent cover in category 3 will be introduced as soon as practically possible and within the timescales for other changes to definitions in the ABFs statement.
In the meantime, Unum will write to IFAs to ensure that clients are aware of the need to take out at least minimum coverage. If Unum receive any applications which do not include minimum coverage, they will be referred back to the IFA for discussion with their client.
Head of health,
ABI, London EC2