Travel insurance claim for depression. Landmark case?

• 

  lasertip on 19/12/2015 - 02:23

  +2

  I don't work for an insurance co, but thinking as an economist, insurance cos would charge consumers based on their estimated risk level.

  Current insurance premiums are set at a price calculated by something like:

  Cost of insurance = Profit Margin + (Probability of each risk occurring x cost to co of each risk)

  as QBE says:

  "The general insurance industry relies on insurers being able to price products appropriately to reflect the risks and, as such, the law in each jurisdiction recognises insurers are entitled to discriminate on this basis"

  Of course the actual calculations are more complex, including excess for moral hazard, etc. But insurance cos calculate the cost of insurance based on the risks covered in the PDS.

  Now without pointing any fingers (I haven't had a bad experience with an insurer), I don't advocate large cos using fine-print in their contracts to catch out unsuspecting consumers. I ALWAYS read the PDS before purchasing insurance, and think that everyone should do so but understandably, most people don't.

  Insurance cos should be more upfront about their coverage, perhaps listing major points clearly on their websites rather than putting it all in a long, nondescript document and customers should make better effort to inform themselves.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 19/12/2015 - 09:51

  Ms Ingram, who developed depression when she was 17

  seems to me a pre-existing condition that should of meant insurance did NOT pay out

  this country is becoming a joke. No wonder premiums are so high

  • 

    iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 09:55

    , was refused reimbursement for a 2012 school trip to New York, after she became too mentally ill to travel.

    Here is rest of the sentence you've missed.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 19/12/2015 - 10:29

      -1

      I didn't miss it at all.

      She should not have won the court case. Wouldn't surprise me if this girl is doing a law degree at university, seems just the type to sue over something so stupid

      • 

        iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 11:06

        +1

        Ms Ingram, who developed depression when she was 17, was refused reimbursement for a 2012 school trip to New York, after she became too mentally ill to travel.

        So where in that suggest to you that it was a pre-existing condition?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 19/12/2015 - 11:08

        @Oversimplified:

        QBE's travel insurance does not cover trip cancellation due to mental illness, even if the mental illness is not a pre-existing condition.

      • 

        iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 11:10

        @Makoto: Which doesn't say anything about whether her "depression" was a pre-existing condition.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 19/12/2015 - 11:11

        @Oversimplified: it doesnt matter whether it is or isnt, she should not have won the court case. The reason everyones insurance premiums are so high are because of idiots like this

        I'm sure between the time she booked her travel insurance and the trip was starting she didn't just suddenly become a mental patient, these things dont just happen when you click your fingers

      • 

        iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 11:29

        @Makoto: There are many causes associated with "depression". There are many factors that makes an individual susceptible to "depression", genetic, previous life events etc etc. She may have gone through events that have triggered "depression" during that time.

        There is no clear line between those who will suffer from mental disorders or those who will not nor what will tip the balance over for someone. The onset of depressive disorders could've happened during that time as far as I see.

        If she was trying to abuse the system, I would assume that there would've been better way to do so, especially considering that there is a 3 years gap between the trip and when the court case was closed and considering that this is "the first ruling of its kind". Besides, I'd assume that VCAT is not idiotic enough to just accept a claim without any kind of evidences.

• 

  Ughhh on 19/12/2015 - 09:56

  +1

  Hmm insurance companies will probably have to assume and apply mental illness cost/margins to everyone now.

• 

  try2bhelpful on 19/12/2015 - 10:44

  +1

  Mental illness should be treated like any other ailment for insurance purposes. However, if already diagnosed, it should also be treated as a pre existing condition.

  Personally I think she is looking at short term gain for long term pain. Any "potential" future employer who Googles her name is going to be presented with this article. Not only a mental illness sufferer but also someone who is likely to litigate if she feels discriminated about it. Bin one resume.