Changes to TPD Definitions

2
Will you reconsider your approach when advising on TPD cover benefits, given the recent court ruling that blurs the distinction between ‘unable’ and ‘unlikely ever’ definitions?
  • No (41%)
  • Yes (38%)
  • Not sure (21%)

Our latest poll asks you to consider your approach to TPD policies in light of a recent court decision which effectively removed the distinction between ‘unable’ and ‘unlikely ever’ to return to work.

The decision, which was part of a case heard in April this year, elevated ‘unlikely ever’ to mean a very high probability that a person could not return to work in their chosen field or another field based on their education, training and experience, and placed it on par with an ‘unable’ definition (see: Critical Court Decision Removes TPD Distinctions).

BT’s Jeff Scott says the decision is an important change for advisers and their clients, particularly where they hold ‘Any Occupation’ TPD policies, and who may now struggle to make a successful claim after the precedent set by this case.

As you cast your vote, let us know whether you were aware of this issue or have started to see changes to the terms of TPD policies that reflect the court’s position and the possible impact it may have on your clients…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  1. While you have to acknowledge it’s now potentially going to be harder to claim, I answered ‘no’ because I didn’t strongly recommend it before and that won’t change. I’d have liked to see the ‘no I won’t change’ option divided into 2 options: ‘I recommend it now and won’t change’ and ‘I don’t recommend it now and won’t change’. BTW, I am much more likely to recommend TPD to blue collars (who often can’t afford it or have it anyway).

  2. I answered NO because who cares about the best of bad bunch. Yes, there is a place for ‘any occupation’ TPD for many occupations, but no place for occuaptions where skills required are high end hand/eye coordination or high end decision making.

Comments are closed.