AFCA Upholds Insurer’s Decision in Breast Cancer Claim Case

The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.

The woman was diagnosed with cancer in her right breast on October 5 of last year, followed by the discovery of cancer in her left breast eight days later. She filed claims under her critical illness policy that she had obtained on July 17.

However, TAL Life, her insurance provider, rejected the claims based on the policy's three-month qualifying period for cancer coverage.

In its ruling, AFCA noted that the policy had provisions to potentially waive the qualifying period if the policyholder could prove they were insured either under a previous TAL policy or by another insurer for the same events, right before their new coverage commenced.

The claimant contended that she had cancer coverage through an insurance policy provided by her husband's employer. She presented a letter from the employer affirming that she was covered under a "life, accident, critical illness, and medical insurance" scheme from August 2020 until June last year. Additionally, she showed documentation indicating her husband’s policy did include critical illness coverage for spouses, encompassing cancer.

While AFCA accepted the availability of this cancer coverage, it was not convinced that she held such coverage "immediately before the current policy began." It also noted she had failed to disclose her previous insurance when applying for the new policy with TAL Life.

"There is no information before me about the extent of the critical illness cover the complainant had, if any, through her husband's employer’s insurance arrangements," AFCA’s ombudsman stated.

"Furthermore, it appears that any cover she might have had ceased about a month before the new policy started. I am not convinced there was 'continuity of cover' as suggested by the complainant."

The ombudsman expressed AFCA’s sympathy towards the claimant, especially given that the diagnoses occurred "very close to the end of the qualifying period." Nonetheless, he emphasized that there was no valid reason for the qualifying period to be dismissed.

"The qualifying period is reasonably short and its existence is not unjust. These terms are part of all insurance policies and they draw necessary boundaries. The enforcement of these terms is not inherently unfair," the ombudsman elaborated.

For a more detailed account of the ruling, refer to the original report by AFCA.

Published:Wednesday, 4th Sep 2024
Author: Paige Estritori

Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Cyber Risk Is Blurring the Lines for Professional Indemnity Cover

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent insurance market commentary has again highlighted a growing challenge for Australian professional service firms: cyber incidents are no longer just an IT problem. When a system outage, data handling error, failed implementation, software defect or poor security recommendation causes a client financial loss, the dispute can quickly move into professional indemnity territory. - read more

Client Distress Is Becoming a Professional Liability Trigger

02 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh small business finance reporting has put insolvency and cash-flow pressure back near the top of the risk agenda. While headlines often focus on company failures, tax debt, late payments and tighter household spending, the professional risk message is broader: when clients are under financial strain, expectations harden and disputes can escalate quickly. - read more

Why Complaint Handling Is Now a Professional Risk Test

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry attention on ASIC’s internal dispute resolution data has put complaint handling back in the risk spotlight for financial services firms, advice practices and the businesses that support them. While IDR reporting is often viewed as a compliance obligation, it can also reveal the early stages of a professional indemnity exposure: a dissatisfied client, a disputed recommendation, a delayed response, an alleged error or a breakdown in communication. - read more

Compensation Rules Put Professional Indemnity Cover Back in Focus

19 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry attention on ASIC's expectations for compensation arrangements is a timely reminder that professional indemnity insurance should not be treated as a once-a-year renewal task. For Australian professionals who provide advice, compliance support, financial services, consulting, design, technology or outsourced business services, the adequacy of cover depends on how closely the policy matches the work actually being performed. - read more

Respect@Work Duties Are Becoming a Professional Risk Issue

12 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh attention on how Australian businesses put Respect@Work obligations into practice is a timely reminder that workplace conduct risk is no longer confined to HR manuals or internal training sessions. For consultants, advisers, compliance specialists, accountants, lawyers, recruiters, trainers and outsourced business support providers, the growing focus on prevention can also create a sharper professional liability exposure. - read more

Click for more Insurance News