Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Over the past few months, we have seen an increasing number of policyholders shocked by sudden and substantial demands to top up premiums or face policy lapse – particularly for medical insurance sold as “covering until age 99”.

Based on recent cases and policy documents reviewed, there are several important realities that consumers should understand.

1. “Cover Until 99” is usually NOT what people think it means
When an insurance agent says a medical policy “covers until age 99”, this rarely means:
• guaranteed medical coverage until age 99; or
• coverage at the same premium throughout your lifetime.

In most investment-linked medical policies, “99” merely refers to the maximum age the rider can theoretically remain attached, provided the policy does not lapse. Coverage is conditional on:
• sufficient investment value;
• rising insurance charges being fully paid; and
• repeated premium increases or top-ups over time.

Once the investment value is exhausted, the policy lapses – regardless of what age the policy was “supposed” to cover.

2. Medical insurance costs rise exponentially after age 65–70
This is the point that is most often downplayed or not explained at all. From policy charge tables and illustrations we have reviewed:
• medical rider charges increase gradually in earlier years;
• but after age 65–70, charges rise steeply and exponentially;
• by the 70s, monthly insurance charges can far exceed the original premium.

This is not a small adjustment. It is a structural jump. A premium that looked “affordable” at age 50 can become mathematically incapable of sustaining the policy in the 70s – even if no claims were made.

3. “Just top up” is not a neutral suggestion
When insurers later recommend:
• large single premium top-ups; and/or
• substantial monthly premium increases,

this is often presented as a way to “keep the policy sustainable”. What is rarely discussed is whether:
• the remaining contractual term of the medical rider justifies such funding;
• the policy is already near its natural expiry age; or
• the original premium structure was realistically designed for later-life costs.

4. A signed “policy acknowledgement” is not proof of real disclosure
Insurers often rely on policy acknowledgement slips signed many years ago to say:
“You acknowledged receipt of the policy documents.”

However, many such acknowledgements:
• do not list what documents were actually provided;
• do not highlight critical terms such as rider expiry age or non-guaranteed charges;
• do not explain sustainability risks in later life.

An acknowledgement of receipt is not the same thing as meaningful disclosure or understanding.

5. The uncomfortable truth: stop relying blindly on insurance agents
This needs to be said plainly. Insurance agents are incentivised to sell products. Many genuinely believe what they are selling. But consumers should stop assuming that:
• “lifetime medical” means lifetime affordability;
• “cover until 99” means no major premium shocks; or
• an illustration reflects real-world costs at age 70 and above.

If a product is described as covering you to 99 without a realistic explanation of exponential premium increases after 70, that description is incomplete at best, and misleading at worst.

6. Practical takeaway for consumers
Before trusting any medical insurance product:
• ask what happens to premiums after age 70;
• ask whether coverage is guaranteed or conditional;
• ask how long the rider actually lasts contractually;
• and assume that future premiums will not resemble today’s premiums.

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us