The letter from John Lynch at the Insurance Advisory Service commented on a previous article that ran with the headline `R&SA issues broker loyalty ultimatum' (Insurance Times, 20 December).
First, you inaccurately headlined my comments in the first article. There is no ultimatum. R&SA does not do business like that and your headline seemed to me completely disconnected from the content of the article, which correctly explained we had clarified to brokers the business that we were prepared to write.
I took the opportunity to speak to Lynch at the Insurance Advisory Service, an insurance consultancy, and his issue with R&SA is about agency culling, a subject completely unrelated to the article he referred to in his letter.
Do the industry a favour and report the facts not your spin on them.
Royal & SunAlliance
Editor's reply: John Lynch's letter was quoted verbatim. We are not responsible for his views.
As for the article printed on 20 December, we have not misquoted you in any way. Nowhere in the headline of the story does it say that this is a quote from you or anyone else. As with all news stories we report on what we find out.
The facts: we discovered the R&SA document saying the company would not consider risks marketed at last renewal date or those presented less than five days before target date. This is an ultimatum (a statement of terms by one party, the rejection of which could cause a breakdown in relations - OED definition).
Double whammy for tourists?
If, as it now appears, travel agents and tour operators will escape being regulated in their selling of travel insurance, do you suppose the government will lower IPT on travel insurance bought through a regulated intermediary into line with other general insurance products?
Surely hard hit intermediaries deserve a competitive advantage if they are to suffer the costs of FSA regulation.
If intermediaries are to be denied a level playing field, why should the travelling public also be subjected to the double whammy of 17.5% IPT and be sold unregulated insurance products?
R Dadson ACII
Snowcard Insurance Services
The good old days
So we now know. The GISC chief executive says compliance costs will be about £870m per year - or 3% of insurance companies' revenue. Disgraceful.
And who pays? It must eventually be the insured, in higher premiums.
A contract of insurance has always been based on utmost good faith, but what do we daily read in the press, listen to on the radio, or see on television? Fraud etc.
Add to these the failure of insurers to have adequate telephone facilities or competent staff in their offices and you have the basics of an industry that is failing its clients.
One can even talk to the answering machine for 15 or more minutes and get no further. Need I say more?
Name and address withheld