A terminally ill man is suing Norwich Union Life Insurance and his financial adviser because Norwich terminated his near $1 million policy after discovering he had cancer, a court was told yesterday.
A terminally ill man is suing Norwich Union Life Insurance and his financial adviser because Norwich terminated his near $1 million policy after discovering he had cancer, a court was told yesterday.
Vincent Gordon Beverley, 58 of Main Beach on the Gold Coast, and his wife, Elizabeth Mary Carol Beverley are suing Norwich Union Life Insurance and their financial adviser Peter Ness.
Barrister Syd Williams, QC, for the Beverley’s told the Supreme Court civil trial jury his client was dying.
“Vince is in fact dying of prostate cancer and has only a short time to live. He was diagnosed late in 1997,” he said.
Beverley, later giving evidence in the trial, said earlier this year his doctor had given him a life expectancy of between 10 and 12 months.
Williams said Norwich had cancelled the policy in 1998 on the grounds that Mr Beverley had not disclosed medical tests taken in 1995.
However, the Beverleys’ maintain they fully informed financial adviser Peter Ness of the situa-tion in 1995 and he told them not to worry.
The couple took out a life insurance policy on Beverley in 1995 for $950,000 on death, with $500,000 of that to be paid out when a critical illness was diagnosed.
Another $250,000 was to be paid when medical opinion stated that the patient had less than 12 months to live, and then the remainder was to be paid out on death.
At the time, the Beverleys’ already had life insurance policies totalling $1.5 million through Le-gal and General Insurance.
Ness, their financial adviser who had sold them the Legal and General policies, contacted them in 1995 and recommended that the Norwich policy would better suit their needs. By then, Ness was an agent for Norwich, not Legal and General.
Williams said Ness had assured Mr and Mrs Beverley there was no risk in changing policies.
“Mr Beverley will say Mr Ness was very persuasive and had an explanation for everything and seemed very keen for them to make the change,” he said.
Three weeks before taking out the Norwich policy in 1995, Beverley had a regular check-up with his GP including blood tests which revealed a doubling in his Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) compared with a test five years ago.
On the advice of his GP, Beverley tried to have an ultrasound, but was told he needed a specialist referral.
Williams said the specialist told Beverley that increased PSA did not necessarily indicate cancer and could mean instead a condition known as Prostititis, which Mr Beverley had in fact suffered from in the past.
The specialist physically examined Beverley and found no clinical evidence of prostate cancer.
Beverley says he explained the situation to Ness who said there was nothing to worry about and filled in the relevant section on the policy questionnaire himself, ticking “no” for health and medical problems.
“I was confused and wanted to do the right thing. I mentioned I’d been for an annual check-up and had a PSA test done,” Beverley testified.
“He (Ness) asked me if it was something I was concerned about and I said `no, not and all’, and so he said `don’t worry about it’ and he wrote, `in excellent health’.
“If I had any concerns for my health I would not have cancelled the (existing Legal and General) policy.”
The insurance company and Ness deny they were informed about the tests and maintain they would never have issued the policy if they had any knowledge of them.
