People naturally have different priorities, some want basic cover at the cheapest price, others may want to have the most comprehensive cover available with cost not being an issue.
Clients may prefer a product from a brand they are familiar with or choose a company they perceive to be financially strong.
Common objections from clients may be they don’t want to go through a rigorous underwriting process, says Peter Hamilton, head of retail propositions at Zurich, or that they are worried that if they suffer an illness the provider may not pay a claim.
Mr Hamilton says: “Underwriting requirements and claims history will become important here. The key is to establish what is important to the client.
“There is a lot of support in the marketplace for advisers to use including fact-finding materials and sales aids to illustrate the need.
“A number of providers also provide reasons why paragraphs to help adviser construct their recommendation letters.”
Ultimately the best plan for your client may not be the plan that gives them the cheapest premium or the highest level of cover, agrees Kevin Russ, technical manager of Friends Life Individual Protection.
He says many plans have features that may be particularly attractive to NHS doctors or those wanting some form of cover in case they are hospitalised or if their child was to get seriously sick.
Emma Thomson, life office relationship director of LifeSearch, recommends advisers consider the friendly societies for the quality of their own occupation cover but all our experts agree the most suitable cover is always the one that best fits your client’s needs.
In terms of picking through the fine print the deferred period should be carefully selected to tie in with the end of the employer’s sick pay, says Dougy Grant, protection director of Aegon UK, and to reduce the cost of premiums where possible.
He says the choice of provider should also be influenced by the percentage of benefit offered.
Mr Grant says: “Some companies offer 70 per cent on the first £10,000 of gross annual earnings and then reduce that percentage paid for subsequent earnings bands down to 30 per cent.
“Other providers offer a flat 50 per cent on the entire sum of gross annual earnings.”
