Armys approved insurers ????

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bowser-Mong, Apr 22, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In The Sunday Telegraph (page 8 (can't provide a link sorry)) is a very interesting article about Pax Insurance. It is, apparently, the MOD's approved insurer but is now "letting down soldiers" as it is not paying out for those who suffer from mental trauma. Now it is in the "small print" about this and there are other get out clauses that mean that this company and others like them will happily take your money but not pay you. In this day and age of increased mental trauma suffered by personnel surely the MOD needs to look into this and try to find a company that will pay out for this sort of thing and not have numerous get out clauses that cover a multitude of sins. Or am I just being cynical when I say (my opinion) that money may be changing hands so the company has a monopoly on this?

    I remember that my father advised me not to take out any insurance with companies that came onto camp as they were just out to make a quick buck and as an RSM he advised young soldiers to look into more than just one or insurance companies. He also advised me to ask any reps what theie cut was if they got us signed up as we were entitled to know as it was our money that would, ultimately, being paying them. I f they were evasive then look elsewhere.
     
  2. Your father and the RSM were giving you sound advice Falls.
    There is a scandal in America at the moment about college officials owning shares in the companies approved to make loans to students.
    Best to compare 'approved' companies with other companies deals whether you be a student looking for a loan or a soldier in need of insurance.
     
  3. Thank you to the Sunday Telegraph & the reporter Sean Rayment for bringing this important, as well as crucial subject to the forefront; then at least serving soldiers will be able to judge for themselves,.... at just how much the MOD has let them down concerning PAX insurance, & Yes I do feel that there has been a lot of backhanders between senior officers & civil servants at the MOD with PAX, to let this blatant discrimination against forces personal carrie on.

    At the end as long as their filling their own pockets-whilst those on the ground are being wounded & struggling to make ends meet then thats OK then.
     
  4. I've heard from a few lads over the years who have been fobbed off for claims because of small print on their policies. Until something happens you never know what they will say as long as they collect your premiums once a month they dont give a fcuk.
     
  5. This looks like the right link.


    Pax and their ability / non ability to pay has been discussed a few times on here before, with a guy from PAX giving some input. Cant find it now and got to go out, maybe some other helpful chap could do the honours???
     
  6. Been done to death elswhere. The guru on this isw PAXBLOKE who is out of the country at the mo. I shall point him towards the article when he returns, but the gist of the other threads was "read the small print" and if you can find a policy that covers you for PTSD then good luck.
     
  7. As with all contracts, the onus is on the person taking the contract out to ensure that it covers exactly what they want it to. It is no fault of anyone other than the signatory if the insurance does not pay out for something that is not covered. Small print is there for a reason; to trick you. but itis up to you to read this and not just sign on the dotted line because it sounds too good to be true!!!
     
  8. In 1996 mobilising at Catterick I remember a presentation on PAX, given the same weight as CAC, Warring Factions et cetera in the programme. Now the MOD is saying, oh not our recommendation...pathetic.
     
  9. PAX have sent me all its policies from Dec 1989 up-til 2005, some points to note from them.

    1. From 1989 up-til 1997 PAX did cover mental health illness 'eg' on the 1989-1992, 1994-1997 policies, ' schedule of benefits No 4 Permanent & incurable insanity'.
    PAX & the MOD stated to me that the PAX policy only covers 'Bodily Injury', if this should be the case, how does the MOD and Pax define permanent and incurable insanity as a bodily injury for seven and a half years?

    2. Between 1997 - May 2000: Nowhere in the Pax's policy, does it mention anything covering permanent and incurable insanity.

    3. Pax's Policy - May 2000: Only on this policy does it begin to exclude with precise 'definitions' that the policy will not cover:- PTSD, Psychological or Psychiatric illness or condition.

    4. Pax's Policy September 1994/97: Under 'Terms and Conditions', No.8, it states that the company may alter the 'Terms and Conditions' and/or Premiums at anytime provided the prior agreement of the MOD has been obtained. Such changes will be effective on all insured persons on that date agreed. Prior publication of any such changes announced by the MOD, will be deemed as sufficient notice.' This statement is repeated on the Pax's policy, for 1997/2000.

    The wording then alters on Pax's policy July 2005: 'We may alter the Terms and Conditions and/or premiums subject to the agreement of the PLAN CO-ORDINATOR. Such changes will be effective on all insured persons on that date agreed. Notice of such changes given to the PLAN CO-ORDINATOR will be deemed to be given notice to the cover holders.'


    lf this should be the case, that the MOD are always in consultantion with Pax, and not as the MOD has stated that the Pax is a civilian firm and has nothing whatsoever to with them. How is then that the MOD allows its Junior Officers and Senior NCOs, to push Pax's insurance policies in the ranks. Also, if Pax are altering their policies as and when they feel like it, why is it down to the MOD to notify the policy holders? Remember this is a civilian insurance firm, that the MOD keep denying that has anything to do with them - washing their hands of any responsibilty.

    l may be cynical to suggest that Senior Officers of the MOD as well as Civil Servants knew that a percentage of soldiers returning from operational theatre such as N.l. The 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, were displaying increase symptons of PTSD. These same Senior Officers and Civil Servants are the ones that are responsible for allowing Pax a free - hand in constructing an insurance policy that does nothing but contradict itself no-end over the years. See paragraphs above.

    ln 1998/99 former soldiers had taken group action against the MOD for the Medical Negligence relating to PTSD. Pax follows this by excluding PTSD in their May 2000 policy. lf the MOD are attempting to fight a court action in the late 90's, how could Senior Officers as well as Civil Servants within the MOD, allow Pax to submit a policy that excludes PTSD. Thus denying soldiers that were injured with PSTD some chance of claiming from their Pax insurance policy.......
     
  10. lf Pax never excluded PTSD from its policies, l would say that if a soldier was to be medically discharged from the forces, as well as being a Pax policies holder s/he would be looking at £10,000 per unit s/he had has a policy holder. Example 7 units = £70,000, no wonder Pax excluded PTSD. l bet there are some civil servants & senior officers that have retired, off the backs on the generous handshakes that Pax rewarded them with!