View more on these topics

Bright Grey and Scot Prov improve CI definitions

Bright Grey and Scottish Provident have improved their critical illness cover by adding two new definitions and adding an extra Association of British Insurers plus definition.

The provider has upgraded its definition of multiple sclerosis to ABI+, which means the definition exceeds the industry standard. The enhanced definition means a pay out could be made after three months of persisting impairment rather than six months.

It has also added definitions for accident hospitalisation and third degree burns. The two new definitions pay out up to £15,000 or 20 per cent in addition to the sum assured.

The changes to the definitions apply to both Bright Grey and Scottish Provident’s CI offerings. Scottish Provident has also reduced its life and critical illness rates.

BG has also increased the limit for life cover from £5m to £10m and increased the guaranteed life or critical illness cover from 54 to 59.

The changes take the total CI definitions to 45, with 41 paying the full amount of cover and four paying out in addition to the sum assured and 10 classed as ABI+.

BG proposition director Roger Edwards says: “With so much focus on the gender directive at the moment the importance of life insurance for women has been well sign posted.  But what about their wider protection needs?  When you consider that every year in the UK, twice as many women than men are diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, it is a great opportunity to think about critical illness cover at the same time.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. All reasearch with clients suggests that moving forward they require simplified products. Yet the life assurer’s continue to complicate them adding more conditions in the rush to satisfy advisers insatiable appetites for having more conditions covered. The majority of conditions added have very very few claims and the criteria for meeting the calims on these is very narrow.
    If research were done on the volume of claims outside of the top 5 or 6 core conditions then I suspect the number would be very very small.
    Why do we never focus on what the cleints actually need rather than what the industry percieves the adviser wants to meet the “best advice”.
    The industry will change moving forward and the cry for simpler products will make the change happen.
    Younger people will want to to business direct via smart phones and tablets. They will not want these complicated plans. When will the life companies catch on?

  2. I agree with you anonymous. The “Illness Race” as I call it has been going on for years – but when your distribution is through intermediaries alone then you have to play the game. If my list of illnesses gets shorter than my competitors I lose sales.

    Simpler products undoubtedly will be needed to crack direct to consumer – but at the moment we do not play in that space.

  3. I disagree. The illness race is only worthless when NOBODY claims for a specific condition. For that one person or more who does claim then the “race” to include more illnesses would have been a God send.

    Whilst clients may want simplicity they in some instance also need saving from themselves. How many clients would take out anything more than life cover without an advisers input, or take income protection instead of critical illness?

    As the general population become increasingly aware of the complexity of this product and variances between products and provider then this should hopefully lead to more meaningful conversations with advisers and result in clients being better protected.

    Interestingly, neither Bright Grey nor Scottish Provident appear to have updated their literature so far so will clients applying now have the benefit of the additional features?

  4. Roger Edwards 27th May 2012 at 6:51 pm

    The new additions are launched Monday 28 May – all literature changes and web changes go live then.

  5. Many thanks, Roger.

  6. I sympathise with both views.

    Maybe we should go back 20 years and offer the core condition or comprehensive version as was the norm then.

    Consumers do not understand CI and, frankly, don’t want to. This is not just a CI problem but applies to most financial services products. Given this it becomes imperative that advisers fully understand the differences and this may well be the more pertinent area to focus on.

Leave a comment