Elise’s husband died seven years later, and at that point Elise discovered the bank had made her husband the beneficiary of his own policy, rather than making her the beneficiary. This meant the policy’s proceeds were caught up in the administration of her husband’s estate for months. It also meant much of the proceeds were inherited by her husband’s children, not her, because he had died without a will.

Our investigation 

We are unable to consider a complaint if the customer became aware of, or should reasonably have become aware of, the bank’s actions more than six years ago. Elise argued she did not become aware of the bank’s mistake until her husband’s death. She was not an insurance expert and did not know that the ownership of an insurance policy could have such dramatic consequences, so she said she had no reason to double-check the transfer forms the bank had her sign.

We obtained copies of the information Elise had received after the policies were transferred in 2014. We discovered Elise had received a letter from her insurer explaining the changes to the ownership of the policies and clearly listing Elise’s husband as the beneficiary of the policy insuring his own life. We found that, on receipt of this letter, Elise should reasonably have been aware that her husband’s policy had been transferred to her husband, not her. We accepted that Elise had no reason to be aware of the consequences this change might have. However, the six-year time limit in our rules applies from the date a customer should have become aware of the bank’s actions, not the date when the customer became aware of the impact of those actions.

Outcome 

We were unable to consider Elise’s complaint because of our time limit rule.