I find this an interesting topic.
21 years ago I took out my mortgage and the provider refused to give me the mortgage unless I took out a life assurance policy. I was forced to take the insurance policy or no mortgage. I think most of us were treated like this years ago.
Now my mortgage loan to value back then was 88% - so there was always equity in the house and in the event I defaulted on my mortgage I can argue that the provider would always get their money back regardless of whether I lived or died, lost my job or not - they always could have sold the house from under me and recovered their money.
The insurance policy therefore it could be argued was an unnecessary policy that the mortgage provider insisted upon.
Sounds just like miss sold PPI to me?
Maybe this will end up opening the flood gates of miss selling life insurance policies for mortgages next?
Any comments or valid reasons why this is any different from PPI?