Over the years I have observed that many hotels and restaurants publicly display on their premises an employers' liability certificate.
I have never understood why, as, of course, the cover is relevant only to employees injured in the course of their employment.
Surely the insurance industry has something to answer for in failing to ensure that members of the public are made aware that the insurers named on the certificate are not necessarily those that they should turn to if they have the misfortune to be accidentally harmed on the premises?
Indeed there may not be PL cover in force at all. Better still, why persuade "offenders" to post the certificate where there is no responsibility of it misleading customers?Thus one of my contacts in the industry advises clients that the certificate should go next to the kettle, i.e. in the kitchen of the premises.
--
Richard A Bain,
Burnetts Solicitors,
Carlisle
Fraud about town
I read with amusement Alan Curtis's letter (Insurance Times, 20 December) concerning direct insurers' culpability in the increase of fraud within the industry.
Apparently the high street broker is perfectly poised to detect fraud from its own customers, seeing them as it does on a daily basis (and `about town'), whereas the direct insurer, taking information over the phone and online, cannot vet either new policies or claims.
Very few high street brokers practise any kind of fraud identification, or seem to have any knowledge to even design and implement a process. Mr Curtis seems to be making the anachronistic assumption that the model of the friendly neighbourhood `high street broker' even exists as it used to.
Policies are implemented and claims made at one remove from the insurers, as much in the intermediary circuit as they are with direct insurers. And most intermediary-oriented insurers have their own call centre claims notification systems, not differing hugely from the practices of direct insurers.
This is clearly not a phenomenon endemic to, or caused by the direct insurer community, and I don't believe for a second that anyone, apart from Mr Curtis, truly thinks that this is the case.
He would appear to have superimposed his own agenda over that of the serious issue of insurance fraud. Which is a nice exercise in sophistry, albeit unhelpful and badly thought through.
--
Name and address withheld
Fight the right case
It is time we focused on fighting back against those claimants whose arguments are tenuous, who wreck our liability accounts, such that premiums are forced up and capacity is becoming scarce.
In a recent case, on appeal, a woman who had fallen over a chain link fence at church was claiming damages. She lost. It was said that she knew it was there and it was time people took some responsibility for themselves.
In another case, a motorist witnessing a fatal accident claimed damages for post traumatic stress. She was offered £30,000 out of court. She pitched for more and lost in court, coming away with nothing.
Both of these cases cost a lot of money to defend. Looked at in isolation, there is scope for the argument it was cheaper to settle.
However, we do need the industry to find the right cases to fight so that the courts can send out a clear message: this society does not want to keep paying out for dubious claimants.
It is time that common sense prevailed and it cannot happen until insurers stop throwing in the towel.
And can we stop hiding behind the Human Rights Legislation, please? Video evidence was used to discredit the claimant in the motorist case. Video evidence is not dead.
--
Steve Grantham
Cooke & Mason plc
Retford
Nottinghamshire
Credibility problem
"R&SA issues broker loyalty ultimatum" (Insurance Times, 20 December) - this is a clear example of self-interest clouding the judgment of an insurer's duty of utmost good faith in their dealings with the insured.
What right does any insurer have to tell an insured who can and cannot be their representative?
It is not surprising that insurance has a serious problem of credibility.
--
John Lynch
Insurance Advisory Service
Phoney calling
A short while ago I received an unsolicited sales call from a company offering 0870 numbers, advising that due to the nature of these we could earn money while our clients were on hold.
"One insurance company earns around £1500.00 per month from this," according to the salesman.
So those of you thinking it's a local rate call, it isn't. It's a national rate call and the longer you stew on the phone the more money they make. The staff I spoke to at one insurer seemed surprised at this, professing sweet innocence.
I wonder who gets the spoils.
--
Simon Cutmore
APN Insurance
Certified for kitchen use
Over the years I have observed that many hotels and restaurants publicly display on their premises an employers' liability certificate.
I have never understood why, as, of course, the cover is relevant only to employees injured in the course of their employment.
Surely the insurance industry has something to answer for in failing to ensure that members of the public are made aware that the insurers named on the certificate are not necessarily those that they should turn to if they have the misfortune to be accidentally harmed on the premises?
Indeed there may not be PL cover in force at all. Better still, why persuade "offenders" to post the certificate where there is no responsibility of it misleading customers?Thus one of my contacts in the industry advises clients that the certificate should go next to the kettle, i.e. in the kitchen of the premises.
--
Richard A Bain,
Burnetts Solicitors,
Carlisle
Fraud about town
I read with amusement Alan Curtis's letter (Insurance Times, 20 December) concerning direct insurers' culpability in the increase of fraud within the industry.
Apparently the high street broker is perfectly poised to detect fraud from its own customers, seeing them as it does on a daily basis (and `about town'), whereas the direct insurer, taking information over the phone and online, cannot vet either new policies or claims.
Very few high street brokers practise any kind of fraud identification, or seem to have any knowledge to even design and implement a process. Mr Curtis seems to be making the anachronistic assumption that the model of the friendly neighbourhood `high street broker' even exists as it used to.
Policies are implemented and claims made at one remove from the insurers, as much in the intermediary circuit as they are with direct insurers. And most intermediary-oriented insurers have their own call centre claims notification systems, not differing hugely from the practices of direct insurers.
This is clearly not a phenomenon endemic to, or caused by the direct insurer community, and I don't believe for a second that anyone, apart from Mr Curtis, truly thinks that this is the case.
He would appear to have superimposed his own agenda over that of the serious issue of insurance fraud. Which is a nice exercise in sophistry, albeit unhelpful and badly thought through.
--
Name and address withheld
Fight the right case
It is time we focused on fighting back against those claimants whose arguments are tenuous, who wreck our liability accounts, such that premiums are forced up and capacity is becoming scarce.
In a recent case, on appeal, a woman who had fallen over a chain link fence at church was claiming damages. She lost. It was said that she knew it was there and it was time people took some responsibility for themselves.
In another case, a motorist witnessing a fatal accident claimed damages for post traumatic stress. She was offered £30,000 out of court. She pitched for more and lost in court, coming away with nothing.
Both of these cases cost a lot of money to defend. Looked at in isolation, there is scope for the argument it was cheaper to settle.
However, we do need the industry to find the right cases to fight so that the courts can send out a clear message: this society does not want to keep paying out for dubious claimants.
It is time that common sense prevailed and it cannot happen until insurers stop throwing in the towel.
And can we stop hiding behind the Human Rights Legislation, please? Video evidence was used to discredit the claimant in the motorist case. Video evidence is not dead.
--
Steve Grantham
Cooke & Mason plc
Retford
Nottinghamshire
Credibility problem
"R&SA issues broker loyalty ultimatum" (Insurance Times, 20 December) - this is a clear example of self-interest clouding the judgment of an insurer's duty of utmost good faith in their dealings with the insured.
What right does any insurer have to tell an insured who can and cannot be their representative?
It is not surprising that insurance has a serious problem of credibility.
--
John Lynch
Insurance Advisory Service
Phoney calling
A short while ago I received an unsolicited sales call from a company offering 0870 numbers, advising that due to the nature of these we could earn money while our clients were on hold.
"One insurance company earns around £1500.00 per month from this," according to the salesman.
So those of you thinking it's a local rate call, it isn't. It's a national rate call and the longer you stew on the phone the more money they make. The staff I spoke to at one insurer seemed surprised at this, professing sweet innocence.
I wonder who gets the spoils.
--
Simon Cutmore
APN Insurance
