6.3 What the case study showed

I have already made findings of misconduct and conduct falling below community standards and expectations above. In summary, I have found that:

  • In respect of the member charged a higher premium after delinking, AMP’s conduct fell below community standards and expectations by failing to communicate with the member in an effective way that he was being charged a higher premium because a non-smoking declaration had not been completed.
  • In respect of the deduction of premiums from the accounts of deceased members after being notified of the death:
  • AMP Super and AMP Life may have engaged in misconduct by breaching section 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act.
  • AMP Super may have engaged in misconduct by breaching the duty imposed by section 52(2)(b) of the SIS Act to act with the skill and diligence of a prudent trustee.
  • In respect of the failure to refund premiums deducted after the date of death:
  • AMP Super may have engaged in misconduct by breaching sections 29VC and 52(2)(b) of the SIS Act and sections 912A(1)(a) and (c) of the Corporations Act. [1]
  • AMP Life may have engaged in misconduct by breaching section 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act.

All of the misconduct and conduct falling below community standards and expectations was caused, at least in part, by AMP’s systems. Some of those systems failed to promote the best interests of members in various ways. The most striking example was provided by the second issue the continued charging of life insurance premiums to member’s accounts after death. AMP’s previous process for stopping premiums eschewed theobvioussolution of turning the premium deductions off upon notification of death.[2] No reason was given for that choice. Mr Sainsbury accepted that it wasnot the best wayto deal with the issue.[3] That is clear from the complaints received by AMP about the continued deduction of premiums after death. Those complaints were raised, at the latest, by 2016, but no action was taken to adopt theobvioussolution until 2018.


[1]Exhibit 6.234, Witness statement of Paul Sainsbury, 5 September 2018, Exhibit PJS-2 (Tab 3) [AMP.6000.0281.0046].

[2]Transcript, Paul Sainsbury, 17 September 2018, 5887.

[3]Transcript, Paul Sainsbury, 17 September 2018, 5887.

77 thoughts on “6.3 What the case study showed”

  1. Pingback: stromectol 32 mg
  2. Pingback: dapoxetine
  3. Pingback: stromectol 600 mg
  4. Pingback: ivermectin for aml
  5. Pingback: viagra pill price
  6. Pingback: ivermectin 200
  7. Pingback: ivermectin 80 mg
  8. Pingback: buy cialis 20mg
  9. Pingback: sildenafil dosage
  10. Pingback: ivermectin syrup
  11. Pingback: buy generic cialis
  12. Pingback: cialis mg
  13. Pingback: merck covid pill
  14. Pingback: buy cialis online
  15. Pingback: ivermectin wiki
  16. Pingback: prednisone
  17. Pingback: cialis best price
  18. Pingback: generic for cialis
  19. Pingback: ivermectin 9 mg
  20. Pingback: cialis cost 20mg
  21. Pingback: viagra sin receta
  22. Pingback: stromectol sale
  23. Pingback: ivermectin 0.5%
  24. Pingback: lasix 80 mg daily
  25. Pingback: furosemide in usa
  26. Pingback: stromectol pill
  27. Pingback: stromectol
  28. Pingback: ivermectin 1%
  29. Pingback: stromectol
  30. Pingback: ivermectine buy

Feedback