In 2006 a claim was filed pertaining to a traffic accident in which the claimant had fallen off a moped and suffered a severe brain injury. The insurer rejected the claim in 2007. In 2011 the claimant discovered that the brain injury had caused permanent incapacity and a new insurance claim was filed, which the insurer rejected. The Supreme Court recently had to consider whether the exacerbation of damage starts a new period for a claim if it has already become time barred.
The new Motor Liability Insurance Act recently entered into force. The previous act dated from 1959 and required complete reform and modernisation to respond to existing and future needs. The new act is structured to follow the typical chronology of the underwriting and claims handling process and aims to promote competition by giving the insurance industry the opportunity to develop new products. This appears to be succeeding, as insurers have already launched new products.
The validity of legal expenses insurance can be problematic when ending business activities. A pharmacist terminated his legal expenses insurance after he retired and ended his business activities. Some time later he received a workers' compensation claim from a former employee. The pharmacist believed that the insurance would cover the matter, but the insurer rejected the claim because the event had occurred after the validity of the insurance.
The Financial Ombudsman Bureau recently issued a number of recommendations pertaining to insurers' rights to terminate cancer insurance policies, following on from its 2014 recommendations pertaining to the amendment of cancer insurance premiums and conditions. The recommendations reiterate that insurers cannot amend insurance contracts or terminate unprofitable contracts unless they draft the conditions carefully at the outset and fulfil their duty to inform.
In a recent appeal case the claimant discovered that an accident had caused permanent incapacity after the claimant had filed an insurance claim, which had been rejected. The claimant hence filed a new claim, which was rejected on the basis that it was time barred. However, the court held that the right to compensation is not time barred and that the insurer had to handle the new claim because the accident's effects had manifested after its first decision.