A claimant who argued his life insurer’s definition of cancer was too narrow has lost his bid for benefits.

The man’s illness does not meet his policy’s definition, despite being a serious condition, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has ruled.

In September 2025, the insured lodged a trauma claim under cover held in income protection insurance after being diagnosed with high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.

Zurich denied the claim, saying there was no evidence its policy threshold of uncontrollable growth, spread of malignant cells, and invasion and destruction of normal tissue had been met.

The man argued his cancer was a serious condition requiring surgery, immunotherapy and ongoing invasive surveillance.

A doctor’s report described it as a high-grade, malignant bladder cancer that carried a risk of recurrence, progression and invasion of normal bladder tissue.

The insured told AFCA the policy interpretation was unreasonably narrow, and unfair.

Zurich referred to histopathology reports stating the man had cancer in situ of the bladder and there was no evidence of invasive malignancy.

That form of carcinoma in situ was specifically excluded under the policy.

The ombudsman says it is not in dispute that the insured had a serious malignant cancer that might recur, progress and invade bladder tissue – but due to treatment, that risk did not materialise.

The policy definition was unambiguous, AFCA says.

See the ruling here.