FSA & IFSA – Impact on Death
Claims
The Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA)
and the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA), both of which have made a
significant impact on the insurance and Takaful industry, came into effect on
30th June 2013. As is common knowledge by now, the FSA repealed four
legislations. Amongst the most importance of this was the Insurance Act of 1996
(IA 1996). Similarly, the IFSA repealed the Takaful Act 1984. These two
legislations have been described as mirror images of each other because of the
similar provisions of law contained therein. However there is one significant
difference: the IFSA provides for legislation to be compliant where relevant,
to Islamic law and Shariah principles. These statutory provisions and rules are
of course, particularly significant to the Takaful industry. The operational
aspects of the law dealing with insurance policy
contracts and Takaful certificates can be found Schedules 8, 9 and 10 in both
the respective Acts.
Although the principles of many of
the provisions in these schedules have been retained from the previous
legislations, there are nevertheless significant changes in some important
areas of the law. This article seeks to discuss those provisions that
particularly relate to the payment of death claims in insurance policies and Takaful
contracts. To have an easy understanding, the provisions of the FSA on this
topic will be discussed first, followed in the second part by that of the IFSA.
FSA 2013
The rules for payment of death claims
for life and personal accident insurance policies under the FSA , where the policy owner is also the insured
life and has named a nominee, is
generally the same. Thus, if a claim is deemed valid, it is mandatory for the
insurer to pay the claim proceeds to a named nominee. The significant change imposed
by the FSA is seen in “trust policies”. A
trust policy is one whereby a non-Muslim policy owner takes up an insurance
policy on his own life and names either the spouse, children or parents as nominees.
The benefit of such a trust is that the death claim proceeds do not form part
of the estate of the deceased and are thereby not subject to the claims of
creditors. Whereas previously the law was silent as to who can be appointed as
a trustee, the FSA now directs that the policy owner cannot name himself as a
trustee or be deemed as one. The appointment of trustees in trust policies has
always been optional. The role of trustees in insurance trust policies being (during
the lifetime of the policy owner), to give consent to contractual changes
whenever applied by the policy owner to the insurer.
Prior to the FSA, insurers adopted
one of two practices when no trustee was appointed in the policy and when
consent was required. Some insurers deemed the named nominee in the policy as
the trustee (“presumed trustee”) while others considered the policy owner as
the trustee (“default trustee”). The Act now only recognizes the concept of
“presumed trustees”. This means that in the absence of a trustee being (expressly)
appointed by the policy owner, the consent of such named nominees are required
when the policy owner applies to make contractual changes to the insurer. Upon
the death of the policy owner however, the law remains the same in that the
claim proceeds are made to the appointed trustee or in the absence of one, to
the competent nominees.
Other notable differences introduced by
the FSA are as follows:
i)
If there is no nominee
named in the policy or it is deemed that there is no nominee named in the
policy contract.
As a general rule the insurer will request for a grant of representation
i.e. probate, letters of administration, a distribution order by the land office
or Public Trustee Berhad (Amanah Raya Berhad). The insurer is however, given a
discretion to make payments directly to the beneficiaries of the estate according
to their beneficial rights as allowed by the law. This distribution process will
follow the rules as provided in the Distribution Act 1958 (as amended by the
1997 Act), the Intestate Succession Ordinance 1960 (Sabah) or the Faraid rules for Muslims.
It is strongly believed that
insurers will not undertake the “cumbersome process” and responsibility to
determine the rightful beneficiaries and pay out the claim accordingly.
Previously, under these circumstances, the IA 1996 permitted the insurer to pay
to one or more individuals and placed the burden and responsibility on them to
distribute the moneys to the rightful beneficiaries. In making payments to such
individuals, the insurer was deemed to have received a proper discharge of
their responsibility.
ii)
Interest on late payments.
Insurers
are required by the law to pay interest for late payments of death claims, for
policies which were on the life of the deceased policy owner. A payment is
considered late if it is paid out after 60 days of notification of the death to
the insurer. Such interest will accrue irrespective of the reasons that caused
the delay. This rule was introduced by the IA 1996 and is retained in the FSA.
The rate of interest has however, been changed by the FSA. Whereas previously
it was “.... a minimum compound interest of 4%
per annum or other such rate as may be prescribed....”, it is now “....
a minimum compound interest at the average fixed deposit rate applicable for
the period of 12 months for licensed banks as published by Bank Negara Malaysia
plus one percent or other rates as may be specified....” . Thus, based on
current rates the interest payable by insurers for late payments is definitely
higher than 4 %.
IFSA 2013
The payment of death claims to
nominees in Takaful contracts has been significantly changed by the IFSA.
Traditionally, a nominee who received death claim proceeds had a duty and responsibility
to distribute them according to relevant laws of distribution. In the case of
Muslims for example, these moneys were often expected to be distributed
according to the Faraid rules. If a Takaful participant had written a Will,
whether Muslim or Non- Muslim, the terms of the Will would apply (subject to
the relevant limitations for Muslims). Under the IFSA however, a participant is
given the additional option to declare that the nominee is to receive the
moneys as a beneficiary of a conditional hibah.
A nominee receiving these moneys as a
hibah or gift is entitled to the full
proceeds and has no obligation to distribute it to any other beneficiaries of
the estate. Moreover, the moneys received “shall not form part of the estate of
the deceased Takaful participant or be subject to his debts”. This effectively makes
the death claim benefits a “ creditor proof “ source of funds for the named
nominee . In life insurance contract this privilege was given only to trust
policies and that too, to selected nominees of Non - Muslim policy owners,
namely, spouse, children and in some cases parents. As for Takaful
participants, be they Muslims or Non- Muslims, the beneficiaries of a
conditional hibah can be any natural
person and is not necessarily restricted to family members. Moreover, the IFSA
does not prescribe any restrictions or conditions if the certificate holder
decides to change his nominee. From a
marketing point of view all these benefits allow for
very powerful sales ideas!
On the subject matter of delayed
payment of death claims, the rules specified in the IFSA are very much similar
to the FSA as stated above, with the following exception on the quantum, the “Takaful
operator shall pay a minimum compensation at the rate of investment yield of
the participant’s risk fund plus one percent or such other rate as may be
specified by Bank Negara Malaysia....”.
Author’s
note: The discussion above is based on the relevant the provisions of Schedule
10 of the FSA and IFSA respectively . The main changes in the law and the
consequent impact have been highlighted while other details which have not seen
significant changes, are not discussed.
