"For me, the message to brokers is clear: write protection properly or refer it to someone who can do the very best for your clients."
- Dale North - Pure Protect
At Pure Protect, we work as a specialist referral partner for advisers across protection, private medical insurance and general insurance. Our role is simple: to help advisers get the best possible outcomes for clients, especially when cases are more complex, time-sensitive or outside their usual comfort zone.
For many mortgage brokers, protection is an important part of the advice journey, but it is not always where the majority of their time is spent. When you are writing tens of mortgages each month, managing lender criteria, affordability, deadlines and client expectations, it can be difficult to also become an expert in every area of protection underwriting.
That is exactly why referral partnerships matter. A recent case at Pure Protect highlighted this in the clearest possible way.
Two years ago, we received a referral from a mortgage adviser who had a client looking for life and critical illness cover. The client was 38 at the time, otherwise healthy, but had a significant family history of breast cancer. Both her mother and sister had been diagnosed with the condition.
As a result, several insurers were only prepared to offer terms with a breast cancer and ovarian cancer exclusion.
For some advisers, that may have been the end of the road. Terms had been offered, cover was available, and the client could have proceeded. But the adviser did not feel comfortable accepting an exclusion without exploring whether a better outcome might be possible.
They contacted us to see whether we could improve on the terms available through their own panel.
After reviewing the market and speaking with insurers, we were able to secure cover with Scottish Widows with no breast cancer or ovarian cancer exclusion. Instead, the policy was accepted with a 50% premium loading.
That distinction matters.
The client paid more for her cover, but she had protection that would respond if she were diagnosed with breast cancer in the future. Given her family history, that was exactly the area of cover she wanted and needed most.
Sadly, the client was later diagnosed with breast cancer. The claim was submitted, handled straightforwardly, and paid quickly.
No one ever wants to hear that a client has been diagnosed with cancer. That is the most important part of this story, and it should never be treated as a sales message. Behind every claim is a person, a family and a very difficult period in their life.
But this case also shows why good protection advice matters so much.
Had the client accepted the original terms with a breast cancer exclusion, the outcome could have been very different. The diagnosis may have fallen outside the scope of the policy, and the client may have found herself without the financial support she expected at the very moment she needed it.
Instead, because the adviser challenged the first outcome and referred the case to a specialist, the client had cover in place that did what it was supposed to do.
This is not about criticising advisers. Quite the opposite. The mortgage broker in this case did exactly what good advisers do: they recognised there may have been a better outcome available and took steps to find it.
That is the message the protection industry needs to keep reinforcing.
The first underwriting decision is not always the best underwriting decision. An exclusion does not always have to be accepted. And where a client has a medical history, family history, high BMI, mental health disclosure, musculoskeletal issue, heart condition, previous cancer diagnosis or any other underwriting complexity, it is worth taking the time to explore the market properly.
At Pure Protect, we receive several hundred referrals each month, and we regularly see cases where terms can be significantly improved. In many months, we can make a meaningful difference to clients who may otherwise have accepted exclusions, ratings or limited options that did not properly meet their needs.
Some of the most common exclusions we see relate to mental health, musculoskeletal conditions, cancer, heart conditions and family medical history. In some cases, an exclusion may be unavoidable. In others, it may be possible to secure full cover with a premium loading, a different insurer, more detailed medical evidence, or a more specialist underwriting approach.
The key is knowing when to challenge and where to place the case. Price will always matter. Clients have budgets, and advisers have a duty to recommend affordable cover. But price should not be looked at in isolation.
In this case, the client was more than happy to pay a higher premium because the alternative was cover that excluded the very condition she was most concerned about. A cheaper policy with a key exclusion may look attractive at outset, but it can prove incredibly costly at claim stage.
That is why quality of cover has to remain central to protection advice.
There is also an important point here about existing clients. Reviewing exclusions should be part of the advice process, not just something that happens when a policy is first written. Circumstances change, medical histories develop, and after a period of time, some exclusions may no longer be necessary.
However, insurers will not always automatically remove an exclusion simply because time has passed or a condition has improved. In many cases, a new policy may need to be considered, or the market may need to be reviewed again to see whether a better outcome is now available.
That creates another opportunity for advisers to add real value.
At Pure Protect, we help with tens of claims each month, and claims are where the true value of advice becomes clear. A policy is not just a monthly direct debit. It is a promise that, if the worst happens, the client and their family will have financial support.
The role of the adviser is to make sure that promise is as strong as it can be.
For mortgage brokers, the challenge is that protection can be time-consuming, particularly when underwriting is not straightforward. A broker may be excellent at mortgages and still not have the time, confidence or specialist knowledge to handle every complex protection case in-house.
There is nothing wrong with that.
READ MORE: CII launches cross-sector taskforce to tackle vulnerability data sharing
The risk comes when a case is placed too quickly, or when the first terms offered are accepted without question, simply because everyone involved is busy. That is where clients can lose out.
If an adviser is unsure, too busy, lacks confidence in the protection market, or believes there may be a better option available, the case should be explored further. That might mean approaching more insurers, gathering more medical information, challenging an underwriting decision, or referring to a specialist protection partner.
The important thing is that the client gets the best possible advice and the best possible outcome.
This case is a powerful reminder that protection advice is not just about arranging cover. It is about understanding the details of that cover, explaining the impact of exclusions, and making sure clients are not unknowingly accepting limitations that could affect them later.
A breast cancer exclusion on a policy for someone with a family history of breast cancer is not a minor detail. It is a fundamental part of the recommendation.
That does not mean every client will be able to get full cover, and it does not mean every exclusion can be removed. But it does mean advisers should be confident that all appropriate options have been considered before a recommendation is made.
The mortgage adviser who referred this case did the right thing. They wanted something better for their client and were prepared to ask whether a better solution was available.
Because of that, the client received a successful claim payment at a time when she needed support most.
For me, the message to brokers is clear: write protection properly or refer it to someone who can do the very best for your clients.
Clients do not know which insurer is best for family history. They do not know which underwriters may take a more favourable view. They do not know whether an exclusion is unavoidable or whether another option exists.
They rely on advisers to guide them.
And sometimes, one referral can make all the difference.
