by auntiem114 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 01:05 am
My boys applied for life insurance. The consent we were told was for nicotine, when the results came back they were tested for HIV, nicotine and cocaine. Nowhere on the consent does it say anything about nicotine or cocaine. The screen was obtained without informed consent. What recourse do we have
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:12 pm Post Subject:
George is 15. Jim is 70.
a 3 year ... a 60 year old
CIC 799. The purposes of this article are to establish standards for the performance by life and disability income insurers of their duty to avoid making or permitting unfair distinctions between individuals of the same class in the underwriting of life or disability income insurance for the risks of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and AIDS-related conditions (ARC); to establish mandatory and uniform minimum standards for assessing AIDS and ARC risks for determining insurability which are deemed to be sufficiently reliable to be used for life and disability income insurance risk classification and underwriting purposes; to require the maintenance of strict confidentiality of personal information obtained through testing; and
to require informed consent before any insurer tests for HIV.
The minimum uniform standard is no test. The generally accepted uniform minimum test is a saliva test.
I don't enforce the law, the Dept of Insurance does. If I am aware of a violation I have a public responsibility to report it. If I report it and the CDI does not enforce it, that's that.
So far, there's nothing to report.
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:45 am Post Subject:
Max,
My GUESS is that you have an incorrect interpretation of the law.
There is nothing about that law that would allow me to conclude that a 3 year old and a 60 year old need to be treated the same.
All the 3 year olds getting the same amount of coverage would need to be treated the same. All of the 60 year olds getting the same amount of coverage would need to be treated the same.
Now, I admit to having no knowledge of the law other than what you have printed. Yet, why am I willing to argue with you.
1)You have a propensity to put down incorrect information that largely appears to be from the fact that you are very involved in the insurance industry, but sell too little of it to have enough first hand knowledge of how things work.
2) If you look at the underwriting guidelines from an insurance company in the state of California, you will see that they don't follow the follow the law based upon your interpretation. My money is on the insurance companies with this one.
Add your comment