Term Insurance Decision Reference 2022-0361

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Reference: 2022-0361
• Date: 09 November 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Term Insurance
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Results of policy review/failure to notify of policy reviews,Delayed or inadequate communication, Failure to advise on key product/service features, Failure to provide correct information, Failure to provide product/service information

Decision Ref:

2022-0361

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Term Insurance

Conduct(s) complained of:

Results of policy review/failure to notify of policy

reviews

Delayed or inadequate communication

Failure to advise on key product/service features

Failure to provide correct information

Failure to provide product/service information

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainants, spouses, incepted a Flexible Term Plan with the Provider on 1 October

1994 which provided each with life cover in the amount of IR £23,735.00 / €30,138.00

(thirty thousand one hundred and thirty-eight Euro) on a dual life basis for a term of 27

years, to 1 October 2021. This complaint concerns the Provider’s failure to carry out policy

reviews in respect of the Complainant’s policy, from the period 2014 onwards.

The Complainants’ policy is noted to be a “long-term financial service” within the meaning

of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017. However, Section 51 of the

Act, ‘Time limits for complaints to Ombudsman’, prescribes that for a complaint relating to

a “long-term financial service” to be investigated by the Ombudsman, in the absence of the

Ombudsman taking the view that there are reasonable grounds for requiring a longer

period, and that it would be just and equitable to do so, “the conduct complained of” must

have occurred “during or after 2002” (Section 51(3)(a)). For that reason, any elements of

the Complainants’ complaint relating to the sale of the policy in October 1994 fall outside

the jurisdiction of this Office and therefore does not form part of this investigation.

The Complainants’ Case

The First Complainant, now age 80, and the Second Complainant, his wife, in her early 70s,

say that they incepted the Flexible Term Plan with the Provider on 1 October 1994 for a