uberrima fides

recently, i was referred to a client who is probably pretty well known because he/she has a high standing in our country's legal community.

my referral wanted advice on the basics of insurance, in other words, the first 'w' for wealth management which is wealth protection planning.

my comments:

everything went well until the point when my referral disclosed that he/she has already met up with another financial adviser but this is perfectly fine with me as i have always recommended all of my propects/referrals to seek a second opinion.

my referral told me the other financial adviser advised her against the disclosure of a medical condition which happened decades ago without any recurrence.

but of course, i disagreed as an insurance contract is based on the principle of uberrima fides (and insurability) and the applicant has to disclose in the application form FULLY and FAITHFULLY ALL FACTS which he/she knows or ought to know, otherwise the insurance effected may be void and no benefit shall be payable.

note: this warning is usually displayed prominently in a life insurance application form.

our meeting did not end as well as it should be because of a significant difference in terms of the advice given by the other financial adviser and myself.

i came out of our meeting with the hope that my referral will make the right decision in terms of her choice of financial adviser and more importantly, opting for full disclosure and not just selective disclosure.