You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

Accidents can happen, and whether it’s to cover a car, a home, or even our health, most Australians would have insurance in one form or another.

As a policyholder we have a duty of disclosure – that means we must let the insurer know any details about ourselves that could affect the type or costs of that cover. If you are asked a question, you have an obligation to answer it truthfully.

I often speak with people who have failed to disclose certain information – such as a criminal record or a medical condition – to their insurer and are concerned that they may be refused a claim.

If you are in this situation, here are 5 things you should know:

  1. If you made an innocent mistake by failing to disclose information, then the insurer still has to pay you what they would have insured you for had you made the disclosure. Unless you have deliberately mislead the insurer.
  2. If the insurer can prove that you deliberately attempted to mislead or conceal something from them, they may avoid paying out on the policy. In this case, it arguably should return the premiums paid by you.
  3. If the insurer is unable to prove that you deliberately mislead them then they could only avoid making a payment under the claim if it could argue that had they known the true facts, they would never have entered into a contract of insurance with you.
  4. If the insurer’s records indicate that they may have given you insurance on other terms, had they been given full disclosure, then the insurer may be required to pay out on the policy, on the terms they would have insured you had full disclosure been made.
  5. If you were not asked about specific information, you may still have been obligated to raise the matter with the insurer if you knew or ought to have known that it was relevant. Typically, we would expect a Court or Regulator to decide if you should have normally been aware.

If you are not happy with the decision made by the insurer, you have the right to appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service. As this legislation is complex, I would advise anyone in this situation to seek legal advice as soon as possible.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Consumer and the Law
Banking Royal Commission legislation introduced

On 28 November 2019, the Government introduced legislation in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The legislation is designed to provide further protections for consumers and small businesses and is set to be passed in early 2020. Below is an overview of the proposed legislation. Click here for a recap of the Banking Royal Commission from our Head of Class Actions, Ben Hardwick. Under the proposed legislation, mortgage brokers will be required to act in the best interests of consumers when providing credit assistance. That means where there is a conflict of interest between the consumer’s...

Gavel and weights two people talking resized
Superannuation and Insurance
An end to for-profit Super funds?

A lot has been said and written about the Productivity Commission’s ground-breaking report into the efficiency and competitiveness (or lack thereof) of the superannuation industry since it was publically released a few weeks ago. Surprisingly however, one of the Commission’s 31 recommendations appears to have attracted no attention, despite the significant implications it would have for one prominent part of the industry: retail (or for-profit) super funds. The Commission recommended that all fees charged by APRA-regulated superannuation funds should be levied on a cost-recovery basis. The Commission reasoned that because super funds are legally obliged to act in members’ best...

Superannuation and Insurance
Under performance of retail Super funds confirmed

The Productivity Commissions’ final report into the superannuation system released today found the current system is “harming millions of members” with underperforming funds, multiple accounts and excessive fees. On 10 January 2019, the Productivity Commission released its final report into the superannuation system. Much like the Banking Royal Commission, the final report is particularly critical of the retail sector, both for underperformance and exorbitant fees. The final report found a significant number of super products were underperforming and that “most (but not all) affected members are in retail funds.” The report found that 77% of 5 million underperforming super...

Investment Statement Cropped

We're here to help. Make an enquiry now.

If you have a question, want some more information or would just like to speak to someone, make an enquiry now and our Superannuation and Insurance team will be in touch with you as soon as possible.

Call us on 1800 444 141