By Gail Pearson, University of Sydney
Life insurance has stood out as an industry without a code of practice when others such as general insurers have one. The latest attempt by the Financial Services Council to remedy this may be a last chance for life insurers to reform, before the government forces them to.
The code from the Financial Services Council focuses on the relationship between the insurer and the customer and aims at high standards of consumer service; professional behaviour and industry consistency. It should complement the legislation announced in 2015 to deal the problems of excessive up front premiums, remuneration practices and commissions which were incentives for insurers to churn customers through policies.
Read more: CommInsure case shows it’s time to target reckless misconduct in banking
The code is also a result of the Trowbridge Report on retail life insurance which gave the life insurance industry a final opportunity to shape its future through a co-regulatory approach, rather than being reformed by the government alone.
Hopefully this latest attempt at reform does not go the same way as the earlier 1995 code of practice for the industry, which lapsed in 2001. This covered similar territory to the Financial Services Council code, but made little difference to the way the industry behaved. A positive sign is this new code was developed in consultation with industry, while the last one wasn’t.
This latest code will again try to address problems with selling practices and the quality of advice, high lapse rates, increases in premiums and their affordability as individuals age, and the redesign and repricing of products. The CommInsure scandal revealed further problems with outdated definitions and problems with making claims.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission can approve these codes of practice for industry but rarely does so. This latest code is yet to be approved as well.
Some sectors have agreed to codes to forestall unwanted legislative change. Other codes establish higher standards of behaviour than required by law.
Codes are legally binding between an enterprise and a customer. This is because when an enterprise agrees to abide by a code it forms a kind of contract on the basis of this promise.
The very first part of the latest code of practice states that the code is binding and commits the entity to the standards in the code. The framework of the code looks at types of business rather than types of product.
One big omission in the code is that it does not cover superannuation fund trustees or financial advisers, unless they explicitly adopt the code. This means it doesn’t cover a group policy where it is the employer or the superannuation fund trustee who has taken out the policy. As a result many Australians with life insurance within their super funds do not benefit at all from the code.
It does however apply to life products such as death, total and permanent disability, critical illness, disability, funeral, income protection, business expense and consumer credit insurance. But it does not cover products issued by a general insurer or a health insurer. This could create some confusion, for example it means that consumer credit insurance is covered by the code if provided by a life insurer, but not if provided by a general insurer.
Compliance with the code will be monitored by a Life Code Compliance committee. This is similar to the banking codes. The Financial Services Council and the insurers both have obligations to make consumers aware of the code.
Consumers can make a complaint using the code to the insurer, the Financial Ombudsman Service or Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. But if a complainant goes to a court, tribunal or other external dispute resolution body, the code no longer applies.
This code has an interesting take on the issue of designing life insurance products, as discussed in the 2014 Financial Systems Inquiry. It clearly states that when new policies are designed, “we will define suitable customers for the product”. This may stop the sale of products to those who don’t need them.
This is good but it still falls short of an obligation to sell a product that is suitable for the particular person, rather than a product that is generic for a class of targeted people. For example tailoring a policy to suit a person’s particular set of circumstances.
It’s a shame that the code has to set out that there will be rules to prevent sales to someone who is “unlikely ever to be eligible to claim the benefits under a policy”. This really should be a part of the system already.
The obligation to review and update medical definitions is a good sign. But this applies only to policies that are currently being sold and won’t help those who are tied to policies with older definitions, that are no longer being sold.
The code also doesn’t have an obligation for insurers to disclose the exclusions in the policy, in plain language, to a customer before they sign a contract. This is something that really should be taken up by the industry.
Funeral insurance is the only life insurance product that requires a pre contract key fact sheet for offers. This type of disclosure shortcut is mandatory for home building and contents general insurance. Although there are difficulties inherent in simplification for key fact sheets this should be reconsidered for other life insurance products.
There are provisions for pre-sale disclosure for consumer credit insurance. Insurers are required to offer an alternative form of payment when there is an offer of an initial loan to pay for insurance. In addition to this, insurers have an obligation to disclose the cost of loan repayments without and with the premiums and the interest payable on them. It may prevent some of the practices revealed in the reports on the problems of add-on insurance.
The code is a step towards a better relationship between the industry and consumers, particularly through the provisions to assist the vulnerable and helping customers make claims. It is not perfect.
The industry should continue to listen and take on board the virtues of the code. It can easily be changed to guide even better standards of conduct and meet newly identified problems.
Gail Pearson is a professor in the business school at the University of Sydney.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
