Major insurer ordered to pay $750k after misleading customers–is your policy safe?
- Replies 6
Insurance policies are meant to offer peace of mind—but what happens when the fine print creates more confusion than clarity?
A recent Federal Court decision has put the spotlight on how insurers communicate critical terms to policyholders.
The case raised important questions about consumer protection and the legal limits of insurance contract wording.
HCF Life, a major Australian health insurance provider, was recently handed a hefty $750,000 fine for including a clause in its insurance contract that could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
The controversial term stated that coverage could be refused if a doctor later determined that symptoms or signs of a pre-existing condition existed before the policyholder signed the contract.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) took the matter to court, arguing that the term contravened the Insurance Contracts Act.
Justice Ian Jackman agreed, stating that the insurer had violated the law, with the conduct regarded as 'objectively serious'.
However, Justice Jackman noted that there was no evidence HCF had intentionally breached the act.
He also found that ASIC had failed to demonstrate more than a 'theoretical risk of harm to consumers'.
The judge acknowledged that HCF’s intent was to make its policy terms clearer for policyholders, even though it was poorly executed.
'While that desire miscarried as matters transpired, the intention of HCF Life was, in itself, a commendable one,' he said.
Justice Jackman also found no evidence that HCF Life had financially gained from the misleading contract terms.
'Insurance products were presented as less desirable than they actually were,' he added.
Following the Federal Court’s ruling, HCF Life issued a statement accepting that the clause concerning pre-existing conditions could have misled the public.
'We apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and are committed to supporting our policyholders,' the statement read.
The insurer also confirmed that it had published corrective information on its website and sent notices to affected policyholders, both current and former.
Alongside the $750,000 fine, Justice Jackman ordered the insurer to publish a corrective notice explaining its breach of the act.
ASIC has yet to provide further comment on the case.
In a previous story, we explored how Australian businesses are facing increasing scrutiny over their practices.
The government has warned companies that they will face the full force of the law if caught in breach.
To learn more about the latest crackdown, read the full details here.
With so many policyholders affected by this ruling, do you think the fine was enough to hold insurers accountable? Share your thoughts with us in the comments.
A recent Federal Court decision has put the spotlight on how insurers communicate critical terms to policyholders.
The case raised important questions about consumer protection and the legal limits of insurance contract wording.
HCF Life, a major Australian health insurance provider, was recently handed a hefty $750,000 fine for including a clause in its insurance contract that could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
The controversial term stated that coverage could be refused if a doctor later determined that symptoms or signs of a pre-existing condition existed before the policyholder signed the contract.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) took the matter to court, arguing that the term contravened the Insurance Contracts Act.
Justice Ian Jackman agreed, stating that the insurer had violated the law, with the conduct regarded as 'objectively serious'.
However, Justice Jackman noted that there was no evidence HCF had intentionally breached the act.
He also found that ASIC had failed to demonstrate more than a 'theoretical risk of harm to consumers'.
The judge acknowledged that HCF’s intent was to make its policy terms clearer for policyholders, even though it was poorly executed.
'While that desire miscarried as matters transpired, the intention of HCF Life was, in itself, a commendable one,' he said.
Justice Jackman also found no evidence that HCF Life had financially gained from the misleading contract terms.
'Insurance products were presented as less desirable than they actually were,' he added.
Following the Federal Court’s ruling, HCF Life issued a statement accepting that the clause concerning pre-existing conditions could have misled the public.
'We apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and are committed to supporting our policyholders,' the statement read.
The insurer also confirmed that it had published corrective information on its website and sent notices to affected policyholders, both current and former.
Alongside the $750,000 fine, Justice Jackman ordered the insurer to publish a corrective notice explaining its breach of the act.
ASIC has yet to provide further comment on the case.
In a previous story, we explored how Australian businesses are facing increasing scrutiny over their practices.
The government has warned companies that they will face the full force of the law if caught in breach.
To learn more about the latest crackdown, read the full details here.
With so many policyholders affected by this ruling, do you think the fine was enough to hold insurers accountable? Share your thoughts with us in the comments.
.png){kind=icon}
It's an insurance that pays you to recover after an accident so similar to life insurance. 
