AFCA Upholds Fair Evaluation in Insurance Claim Dispute

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.

In a case brought to attention, the claimant, who secured his coverage via superannuation, applied for a $9300 monthly policy intended for a two-year coverage span back in March 2020.

The claimant's struggle began in August 2019 when his general practitioner declared him medically unfit for work due to "significant psychological distress," primarily catalyzed by workplace bullying.

As a recourse, the individual took personal leave in August followed by paternity leave in October of the same year. Although he resumed work in October 2020, he had to suspend his professional engagements again by December.

In September 2021, the claimant submitted a request for income protection benefits, citing an adjustment disorder diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depression as the reason inhibiting his capacity to work.

However, MetLife rejected the claim in July 2022, accusing the claimant of inaccurately representing his medical history. The insurance provider argued that the applicant falsely stated he hadn’t been “diagnosed with or sought medical advice or treatment� for psychological issues at the time of application.

MetLife asserted that the applicant already exhibited psychological distress, hindering his work capability long-term, and had they known, the policy would not have been issued. They determined his stress related symptoms equated “to a psychological condition.�

The claimant countered, maintaining he neither identified with a history of psychological ailments during his application process, nor would a typical person in his context.

AFCA elaborated, saying although the complainant experienced "significant stress in 2019," ordinary perception does not always align stress with a psychological or clinical mental health condition. The inquiry focused on awareness of any conditions at the time, not diagnosis existence.

AFCA highlighted that the treating GP did not insist on mental health assessments commonly expected when symptoms emerge, and the sole "treatment" employed was voluntarily steering clear of the work environment, a decision lacking a formal diagnosis.

They elucidated that “Even if the answers given were not actually true (because with the benefit of hindsight the complainant was in fact suffering from a psychological or mental health condition), the panel accepted a reasonable person in the circumstances would also have reached the same belief as the complainant did.�

Following the conclusion, AFCA mandates MetLife to process and revisit the claimant’s submission and communicate the outcome to Hostplus, the coverage trustee, within a 60-day frame. The original content was reported by the Australian Financial Review.

Published:Friday, 1st Nov 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

NIBA Code Draft Puts Broker Fee Transparency Back in Focus

10 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s broker transparency debate has resurfaced after the National Insurance Brokers Association released the final draft of its revised Insurance Brokers Code of Practice for consultation. The issue centres on whether small business clients should automatically receive clearer disclosure about how their broker is paid, even when the policy they are buying is not treated as a retail insurance product under the Corporations Act. - read more

What the Life Code Review Could Mean for Mental Health Claims

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest review of the Life Insurance Code of Practice has put mental health cover at the centre of the national conversation about life insurance, disability insurance and income protection. Independent reviewer Peter Kell has completed his final report, outlining 85 recommendations aimed at improving customer protections, claims handling, communication, vulnerability support and the enforceability of the Code. - read more

What APRA’s Reinsurance Changes Mean for Boat Owners

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest update to the general insurance reinsurance framework may sound like a back-office regulatory change, but it has practical relevance for Australian boat owners watching premiums, excesses and renewal conditions. Published on 7 July 2026, the reforms are designed to give general insurers better access to alternative reinsurance arrangements while keeping safeguards in place for policyholders. - read more

Could NSW Levy Reform Make Insurance More Affordable for Small Business?

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New analysis released by the Insurance Council of Australia has put renewed attention on a major cost pressure for NSW businesses: the emergency services levy, commonly known as the ESL. The levy is currently collected through insurance premiums, meaning businesses that choose to insure their assets can face a higher cost for doing so. - read more

Could NSW Emergency Services Levy Reform Make Insurance Fairer?

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New modelling released on 7 July 2026 has added momentum to the debate over how New South Wales funds emergency services, with analysis suggesting that removing the Emergency Services Levy from insurance premiums could deliver meaningful savings for many households and businesses. The findings, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia and prepared by Lateral Economics, support a shift away from loading the cost onto insurance policies and towards a broader property-based funding model. - read more

Click for more Insurance News