A superannuation fund which failed to inform a member that his default insurance cover had been cancelled because of insufficient funds to meet the premium has been required to pay his daughter $176,000.
In a determination (D16-17\123) handed down in January, this year, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) pointed to multiple shortcomings on the part of the superannuation fund ahead of the member’s ultimate death.
The SCT determination said that from the information provided, the tribunal was satisfied that the trustee failed to:
The tribunal said that having carefully considered the material it had determined the deceased member, “at the very least, had a reasonable expectation that the cancellation of basic cover would have been communicated to him by the trustee within a reasonable period of time of its occurrence and by failing to so do, the trustee has engaged in circumstantial silence”.
Referring to a letter sent to the member about the commencement of his cover, the SCT determination said: “In this regard, the dissemination of the letter dated 6 September 2012 by the trustee, knowing as it did, that the totality of the deceased member’s insurance status and future insurance status was in fact overstated, only goes to further establish this fact,” the determination said. “The obligation of the trustee not to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct, in its formal interactions with the deceased member, goes to the very heart of the fiduciary obligations it owed to him.”
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.