i was just trying to make the point that with vague wording in the own occ parts, an insurance company could say that I can still be a doctor, even though I'm only trained to be an ER doctor. If I have an injury that does not allow me to work in an ER (where procedures and fast pace are vital) but still be another type of doctor, some policies wouldn't pay (despite having an "own occ" rider).

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by GoCrazyAuburn

Member since Feb 2010

34954 posts

Posted on 3/23/12 at 11:38 am to Red Drum

I understand. Lets say something happened that you couldn't work in the ER, but you still could perform some of your principle duties that were involved in that job, most "own occ" policies won't pay full benefits, just partial, and you would have to be gainfully employed to receive these benefits. Their policy allows you to have the choice of whether or not you want to continue working and receive partial benefits, or receive full disability benefits.

I guess the best way to look at the difference in NW's Med Occ definition and anybody else's "own occ" definition is this:

If you think that when you become disabled, losing your ability to do ALL principle duties of your current occupation, but believe you can still be gainfully employed elsewhere and earn a comparable income (or greater than 20%), a traditional "own occ" policy is best.

But, if you can still do some of your principal duties and want to option to cease gainful employment and be eligible for full benefits, the NW Med Occ policy is better. In this scenario, an "own occ" policy would make you be gainfully employed to receive partial benefits.

I think that is where people are getting confused with their policies. Regardless, get the policy that fits your situation.