Insurance Firms Anxious To Avoid Discrimination (Press, 27 May 1988)

In an article published in the "New Zealand Law Journal," Dr Andrew Borrowdale, a senior law lecturer at the University of Canterbury, discussed the stance of New Zealand life insurance companies on the disclosure of homosexuality in the application process. The article, dated 27 May 1988, highlights the findings from a questionnaire sent to 26 life insurance companies in New Zealand regarding their policies on sexual orientation and its implications for insurance coverage. Dr Borrowdale's analysis revealed that a majority of insurance companies did not consider homosexuality to be a material fact that needed to be disclosed when applying for life insurance. Out of the 26 companies surveyed, 12 responded, three declined to participate, and 11 did not reply. Nine of the responding insurers confirmed that they did not view homosexuality as a material fact, while one indicated that this perspective might change if evidence emerged linking homosexuality to altered mortality statistics. Dr Borrowdale noted that the decision to insure primarily hinges on the medical history and condition of the individual applying for the policy. However, he pointed out that if homosexuality were disclosed, it might prompt further medical investigation to assess any potential risks. A representative from one company explained that "prudent insurers" would consider additional factors that could necessitate further medical examinations if they were aware that a proposer was homosexual. None of the companies stated that they would outright decline a life insurance policy based solely on an individual identifying as homosexual. Additionally, they indicated that a policy would not be voided if the individual later died from an A.I.D.S.-related condition, as long as the individual had disclosed their sexual orientation. That said, one company specified that if a policy application included questions about sexual habits and homosexuality was not disclosed, the company would have grounds to potentially repudiate the policy depending on the circumstances of the death. Three companies viewed homosexuality as a disclosable fact based on concerns regarding the higher risk of A.I.D.S. within the homosexual community. However, even in these cases, they acknowledged that disclosing homosexuality would not automatically lead to a denial of coverage; the ultimate decision would be reliant on subsequent medical evidence. Dr Borrowdale concluded that while insurers in New Zealand were cautious about discriminating against homosexuals, the question of whether they were justified in expecting the disclosure of homosexuality remained complex. He suggested that a court might not classify homosexuality as a material fact, although a minority of insurers maintained it could be relevant. Conversely, any indication of A.I.D.S. would undoubtedly be considered a critical fact that must be disclosed during the application process.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand