• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

IP policy to cover premium for other insurance

M

mawenjinde

Member
Hi all,

On page 8 of chapter 6 of ST1: it says that there is 'virtual absence of anti-selection' for this type of IP policy.
But I think there is still some incentive for insured to anti-select. So I don't quite get the 'virtual absence'. Could anyone explain it?

Thank you

Terry
 
I think there is probably a bit of scope for anti-selection, but as the premium for this additional need would be so small, I guess we can probably ignore it.

Or maybe it means that you might select against the insurer generally when buying IP, but the degree of anti-selection would be virtually no higher if you bought some additional sum insured to cover your insurance premiums / pension contributions.
 
A two-part argument, I'd guess; firstly, you only take this kind of policy out to cover the premiums of a policy you already have. Secondly, the kind of person who anti-selects is unlikely to have already taken out a policy without anti-selecting against that policy.
 
possibly because with most contracts the benefit will not kick in immediately and so effectively you would have to be without income for a point in time which for 99.9% of the poultaion wouldn't be a desirable place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top