Beware Another Cyber Scam

Danger Scam AlertOver the past few days, I have received  phoney fax messages sent to my email. The emails, which ask you to click on a link, which causes the damage as soon as you do. Please do not get caught with this or a similar scam. Never click on any link in an email without making sure it is legitimate.

Fax Message [Caller-ID: 1-407-987-4450] [I have disconnected the link]

You have received a 3 page fax at Tue, 26 Nov 2014 12:39:14 +0000.

* The reference number for this fax is chd_did11-16986144087-10416275143-624.

View this fax using your PDF reader.

Thank you for using the MyFax service!

This was an easy one to defect. I do not have a fax program attached to my computer and I did not recognise the US telephone/fax number from which it suggests it was sent. I am not sure at this stage how it got through our junk mail blocker.

cyber with pages #2To learn more about other scams, do not forget to get a copy of Mannings Guide to Cyber Security and Insurance available here. Of course the irony of putting a link into this type of warning is not lost on me. It just shows how much we rely on the net and how easy it is to be caught if you are not diligent.

The risk of cyber attack is real. If you have not arranged insurance on your business please speak with your insurance broker.

Read Me View comments

My thoughts on the sale of TIO to Allianz

The Conversation 2Since it was announced that the TIO may be sold I have been asked by a number of news sources and the like for my thoughts on it.

The main concern of those in the NT is that prices may increase and I really do not see it.

The Conversation, for whom I have written before asked me for my thoughts on this issue and the article has now been published and I thought I would share it with you.

To read the article please click here.


Read Me View comments

Australian Government launches an Online Reporting Portal for Cybercrime

bigstock-detailed-illustration-of-a-Cy-61690667 [Converted]The Australian Government has launched the Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (“ACORN”), which is a secure reporting and referral service for cybercrime and online incidents that may be in breach of Australian law.

Certain reports will be directed to Australian law enforcement and government agencies for further investigation.

The Federal Government should be congratulated for this important initiative which will hopefully gather better statistics on this form of crime and also start tracking down some of the perpetrators.  I am sure this type of crime is costing Australian business and the economy a lot more than people realise. I am staggered just how many SME’s think it will not happen to them.

To visit the site go here.

cyber book with your logoTo assist business owners, Steve Manning and I published a free eBook titled Cyber Security and Insurance which may also be of benefit to you. To view a copy, please go here.

The book is also available in hard copy. To obtain a hard copy version, please email



Read Me View comments

Survey Results on Underwriting Agencies now Available

Gratex surveyWhile the contraction of insurers continues, there is a rise in the number of Underwriting Agencies. LMI assisted Gratex International, winner of the Innovation Award at this year’s ANZIIF Insurance Industry Awards, to survey general insurance brokers on the relevance and performance of Underwriting Agencies in Australia.

The Key Insights from this survey were:

1. Market Optimism predicts GWP Growth

54% of brokers feel confident about the future and predict growth of GWP for Underwriting Agencies, while 99.5% of brokers state they will not move to an entirely direct business model with insurers.

2. Speed of Quality Service is Crucial

We see demand to accelerate turnaround times across all business processes, most importantly in claims processing. (As you will have read in some of my recent posts, this is where I see some major insurers letting themselves and their clients down).

While there is still a strong need to have access to highly skilled staff , there is a strong correlation between operational efficiency and customer satisfaction.

3. Customer Experience Rules

Creating a great customer experience is the paramount concern of the broker. Speed of service delivery together with transparent and efficient claims processing are seen as the key contributing factors. Service and customer experience are the most important criteria for Brokers when they chose Underwriting Agency partners.

4. On-line service presents biggest opportunity

The access to on-line services is very relevant to the business of the broker community, however, it is also a dimension where Underwriting Agencies can take advantage of a lot of room for improvement. On-line services do not replace the need for qualified staff and proactive relationship development.

They not only provide transparency but also operational efficiencies.

5. Product development gives the edge
Empowered buyers and competitive markets drive the need for more and more personalised tailoring of policies. Underwriting Agencies not only need to understand customer requirements in niche markets very well, they also need to develop complex and highly customisable products at competitive pricing.

To read the entire article please click here.

Read Me View comments

Blog Question – Accumulated Stocks

Dollar Gold Coin HubcapToday’s question comes from Singapore.

A quick question on Accumulated Stock Loss if I may Allan.

According to my understanding, normally. if the Insured mitigates their GP (gross profit) loss completely, as a result of accumulated stock, then the Insured would not be able claim for a GP loss, but I believe, the Insured is entitle to claim for ICW (increase in cost of working)  to produce the stock to the original level prior to date of loss, only if the costs are incurred beyond the normal costs (such as overtime) during the indemnity period or if the costs are incurred after the maximum indemnity period. 

Am I interpreting it correctly ? 

I look forward to catching up while you are in Singapore next week.


Dan [surname and email provided]


Hi Dan,

Both at Common Law (see City Tailors Ltd. v Evans (1921)[1]) and, as an expressed Condition applying to Section 2 in most policies, the Insured is required to mitigate its loss. Where the Insured carries extra stock that is undamaged in the incident, this can involve the depletion of stock on hand to maintain sales. How this comes about is the Insured continues to make sales using their stock on hand which, due to the disruption, the Insured is unable to replace or, if it is able to replace the stock, this replenishment is not completed to the point where the level of stock has reached its pre-loss levels before the end of the Indemnity Period. By using some or all of their stock on hand, the Insured reduces their loss of Gross Profit by maintaining revenue (sales).

With a reduction in their stock level, this may mean that the Insured will suffer a loss in the future. This could simply be that the Insured does not have the stock to sell, or they may incur increased costs of working to replenish the stock. Let us take an example. The Insured makes gold $ coin stylised hubcaps for a major motor vehicle producer. The hubcap company has a blow-moulding machine that forms the hubcaps. This unit catches fire and it takes 12 months to replace the machine from the United States. The Insured started producing hubcaps about 3 months before the car manufacturer started their production, as the Insured wanted a stockpile in case they ever had a strike or some other problem that may affect their customer (the car manufacturer) and, therefore, jeopardise the business relationship. It was a form of risk management to the hubcap company that proved invaluable when the blow-moulding machine caught fire. While using up this 3-month supply, the Insured is able to negotiate the temporary outsourcing of the hubcaps to a competitor so that the customer is not lost.

Let us assume that once the motor vehicle manufacturer started, the Insured’s production capacity on hubcaps equalled their customer’s capacity to make cars. After the new blow-moulding machine arrives, the Insured recommences production which, due to the fact that the Insured purchased the same machine as before, he can only produce the same number of hubcaps per day as the car manufacturer. This means the Insured is not able to make up the stockpile during normal production hours.

The combination of using up the entire stockpile and outsourcing, has reduced the loss of turnover during the entire Indemnity Period. However, clearly the Insured has not been fully indemnified. As we have discussed, an easy way to determine if an Insured has been indemnified is to ask the question: “Has the Insured been put in the same position, as near as money will allow, to the position they would have enjoyed if the loss had not occurred?”[2]. In this example, clearly the Insured has not. They no longer have their stockpile of manufactured hubcaps, which they were retaining as a risk management measure.

Several alternatives are possibly available to the Insured. They may:

(a)        Be able to make up the stockpile during business hours. Say, the motor company has an extended strike or sales are down, and they reduce production to four days a week.

(b)        Engage the company that assisted them during the Indemnity Period to make an additional 3 months’ supply of stock when the Insured is back into full production, to replenish their stockpile.

(c)        Have their staff work overtime and build up the stockpile over a long period, but at a cost (the overtime component)

(d)        Not replace the stockpile and incur a loss at some future time, possibly from an uninsured circumstance such as a strike by their labour force.

Clearly in all but the first scenario a loss will occur outside the Indemnity Period, but the benefit to the Insurer occurred during the Indemnity Period. Marks and Morgan (1991)[3] state that “the Insured could be disadvantaged without this clause”. Cloughton (1999)[4] who took over as author of Riley on Business Interruption Insurance, states that the clause is unnecessary in view of the principle of indemnity. While I agree with Riley, for it was his view originally, I feel that the sub-clause again puts the issue beyond doubt and with the toughening attitude of loss adjusters and claims officers in many companies, it is preferable that the accumulated stocks clause is included in the policy wording.

For the Insured to be entitled to make a claim under this sub-clause, it is not sufficient to show that accumulated stocks have been used. It could be as in scenario (a) above, that the Insured would not incur any loss. It is, therefore, necessary to show that a loss of sales has occurred (or will inevitably occur), even though this loss of sales falls outside the Indemnity Period, or that the Insured will incur additional operating costs to avoid such a loss. In either case, the sub-clause requires that an equitable allowance be made.

What exactly is an equitable allowance? This depends on the circumstances of the particular claim. Where the stocks can be replaced in time to prevent a loss of sales, such as in scenarios (b) and (c) above, or where other steps can be taken to mitigate the loss, the equitable allowance would be the additional costs incurred subject to the Economic Limit test. Where the stocks cannot be replaced in time to prevent a loss of sales, the equitable allowance would reflect the amount of the claim, which the Insured has forestalled by using their accumulated stocks.

In this Mark IV wording and the traditional Consequential Loss policies, the cover is limited to the “accumulated stocks of finished goods. However, appreciating that there are cases where Turnover is able to be temporarily maintained due to the use of accumulated stocks of raw materials or work in progress, the Mark V policy simply refers to “accumulated stocks”.

I hope this helps and I am happy to discuss it further if you wish when we catch up Tuesday week.



[1]     City Tailors Ltd. v Evans (1921) 91 LJKB 379.

[2]     As quoted in Manning A., 2005, Business Interruption Insurance & Claims:A Practical Guide, 4th Edition, Mannings of Melbourne, Camberwell.

[3]     Marks F. and Morgan T., 1991, Guide to the 1990 ISR Advisory Policy Wording, Dunhill Madden Butler & Robins GAB, Sydney, p58.

[4]     Cloughton D., 1999, Riley on Business Interruption Insurance, 8th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell Limited, London.


Read Me View comments

Blog Question: How Best to Insure Outgoings for a Landlord

Outgoings Income Buttons Show Budgeting Or BookkeepingToday’s question is:

Hi Allan

Just a query in regards to where to include outgoings for Business Interruption for a property owner? 

Is it just to be included in the Gross Profit figure as these are normally paid by the Tenant or should it be classed under additional costs?

Thanks in Advance

Daniel [surname and email provided]

Hi Daniel,

It was correct of you to identify this as an issue. While not directly being received by the landlord, should the building become untenable, the landlord has the double whammy of losing their rental income, but now must meet the ongoing outgoings of the property, which under the lease can include rates, land taxes and/or  insurance.

As such, it is important to include the amount of the outgoings in the Gross Rentals Sum Insured or Declared Value. Under an ISR there is a Gross Rentals endorsement which moves the cover from a traditional Gross Profit to a coverage designed for a property owner. With a business pack, you typically have a special section for Rent.

Outgoing expenses will typically be included in the test for under insurance and, of course, for the insured to have the full benefit of the coverage, the outgoings need to be included so that the Insured ends up with their same net return as they would had the disruption not occurred.

I hope this adequately  explains the situation.

Regards Allan

Read Me 1

Blog Question: The Transfer of Risk on the Sale of a Home.

Review Character Shows Assess Reviewing Evaluate And ReviewsHi Allan,

I’m hoping you can give me advice.  As you would know, in Queensland, when you sign a contract for a house or land purchase, the property becomes the Buyers Risk, as stated below on the REIQ Contract for House and Residential Land:

8. Rights and Obligations Until Settlement

8.1 Risk The Property is at the Buyer’s risk from 5pm on the first Business Day after the Contract Date.

However, when I approach Real Estate Agents, the topic of insurance is never that important to them.  Would you agree that the Agent or Principle has a Duty of Care to ensure cover on the building is arranged immediately?


Cory [surname and email provided]


Thanks for your note. I grew up in Queensland and so I know all about that clause. It has been there since I purchased a house back in the late 1970’s.  Back then it was my advice to friends and what I did myself was just put a line through the clause. No one ever cared when I, or they, did.

The Insurance Contracts Act has now altered the position.  I reproduce an extract from Mannings Six Principles of Insurance, in which I explain how it works under the Act and this may explain somewhat why they do not believe they are at risk. You will see that I use Queensland as my example:

 Section 50 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984

50    Sale of Insured Property

(1)      Where:

(a)      A person (in this section called the ‘purchaser’) agrees to purchase, or to take an assignment of, property and in consequence the purchaser has, or will have, a right to occupy or use a building;

(b)      The building is the subject matter of a contract of general insurance to which the vendor or assignor under the agreement is a party; and

(c)      The risk in respect of loss of or damage to the building has passed to the purchaser;

         the purchaser shall be deemed to be an insured under the contract of insurance, so far as the contract provides insurance cover in respect of loss of or damage to the building and such of the contents of the building as are being sold or assigned to the purchaser at the same time, during the period commencing on the day on which the risk so passed and ending at whichever of the following times is the earliest:

(d)      The time when the sale or assignment is completed;

(e)      The time when the purchaser enters into possession of the building;

(f)       The time when insurance cover under a contract of insurance effected by the purchaser in respect of the building commences;

(g)      The time when the sale or assignment is terminated.

(2)      A reference in this section to a building includes a reference to a part of a building and also includes a reference to a structure.”

Section 50 of the Act overrides the various States’ legislative attempts, for example the Queensland Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)[1] (as amended), to mitigate the hardship caused to purchasers by the common law approach.

Rather than imposing limitations on the vendor’s application of insurance monies, such as is found in the previously mentioned Queensland Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)[2], the solution adopted by Section 50 is for the purchaser to be deemed an Insured under the vendor’s contract of insurance for a specific period of time. This effectively creates a form of statutory contractual nexus between the purchaser and the vendor’s insurer, which an insurer is unable to avoid, however much it may wish to do so.

The Australian Law Reform Commission recognised that it was contrary to principle to force an insurer to cover a risk they were unable to assess, and to compel it to accept an Insured who might be completely unsatisfactory from a moral hazard point of view. Nevertheless, it concluded that any concern about the purchaser’s fitness as an Insured would be minimised if it were to be given the benefit of the vendor’s insurance for a limited period of time only (that is, from the making of the contract of sale until the completion of the transaction; or entry into possession of the building; or the effecting of cover by the purchaser; or until the sale is terminated). The Commission pointed out that this solution would not affect the desirability of the purchaser arranging its own insurance, for the vendor might have cover that provides inadequate protection for the purchaser, or indeed, might have no cover at all.

Moreover, where a purchaser is deemed an Insured pursuant to Section 50, the insurer can rely upon the same remedies available under the Act[3] with respect to matters such as disclosure, good faith or breach of policy conditions, insofar as the vendor is concerned. In those circumstances, the purchaser may be left with no insurance whatsoever, solely because the vendor’s actions disentitle it to cover.

In summary, Section 50 means a purchaser or assignee of a building and contents who inherits the risk for loss or damage to the property, will be deemed an Insured under any contract of general insurance taken out by the vendor or assignor in relation to the property, for the period commencing upon the date the risk passed to the purchaser/assignee, until the earliest of the following events:

(i)         The completion of the contract.

(i)         The purchaser entering into possession of the property.

(ii)        The commencement of insurance effected by the purchaser.

(iii)       Termination of the sale.

Unlike parts of the Queensland Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)[4], the provisions of Section 50 cannot be excluded, restricted or modified in any way, to the prejudice of the insurer[5], other than in accordance with Section 52(1) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)[6].

Before moving on, I provide a summary of a few cases involving Section 50. In Lukies v Ripley (1994)[7] the court held:

 Section 50 provides the purchaser is to be deemed an insured under the contract of insurance in so far as the contract provides insurance cover in respect of loss or damage to the building between the contract and completion. It should be noted that the plaintiffs have not sued the GIO as a deemed party to the vendor’s insurance policy even though I threw out that hint to counsel during argument. In such circumstances it seems to me that the only effect on the result of this case that s.50 may bring about is to prevent the insurer asserting its rights of subrogation to compel the vendor to tack action against the purchaser for the full purchase price. As the purchase price has abated under s.66M[8], it would not seem that this would have much effect.”

Application of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 in respect to Vendor?Purchaser Transactions

In Cusmano v Pinner & Ors (1998)[9] the judge noted that Section 50 did not apply, as the risk had not passed to the purchaser, as was required by Section 50(1)(c)[10].

With this background, it is worthwhile to sum up the Australian law of insurable interest in the context of vendor and purchaser transactions. Parties to contracts for sale can find themselves in a difficult position when loss is suffered post-contract but prior to completion.

For the sake of this review, we will assume the contract is binding and the purchaser wishes to proceed. Any one of three scenarios is likely:

(i)         The vendor has insurance and the purchaser does not.

(ii)        The purchaser has insurance, but the vendor does not.

(iii)       Both the vendor and purchaser have insurance.

Only Vendor has Insurance

In this situation, Section 50 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)[11] would provide the purchaser with a statutory policy of insurance. However, the statutory insurance provided under Section 50 is no better than the insurance enjoyed by the vendor themselves, so if the policy is struck down by non-disclosure, fraud, or other breach of policy conditions on the part of the vendor, then the purchaser shall also find themselves without cover.

Both parties to the contract are of course entitled to claim under the policy, to the extent of their interest as defined by Sections 16 and 17 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)[12] (ie. economic interest). Assuming the contract reaches settlement (which is the only reason the purchaser would pursue a statutory claim), then of course the vendor’s interest upon completion would be extinguished.

Only the Purchaser Insures the Property

The purchaser may insure for the full value of the property and recover the full amount of any damage occasioned to it, even though this may be more than the value of his or her own interest, provided that the purchaser intended to insure for the benefit of all persons interested.

Strictly speaking, a purchaser’s insurer is not entitled to delay payment until after completion of the contract, although it can presumably wait until the contract is confirmed as valid and the vendor is able to show good title. If the contract is shown to be invalid or the vendor cannot make title and an insurance claim has already been paid to the purchaser, the insurer could no doubt recover the amount paid over and above any loss suffered by the purchaser.

However, conveyances in Australia typically involve at least a 30 day settlement period, so if the transaction proceeds, completion is usually well and truly effected prior to the claim being adjusted and payment made by the insurer.

Where Both Parties are Insured

As we have already discussed, both parties to the contract have an insurable interest in the insured property prior to settlement.

Let us start with the vendor’s position. Until completion, the vendor retains an insurable interest, at least to the extent of the unpaid sale price. That interest is maintained even if the contract is unconditional, because the purchaser might never carry out the contract[13]. Strictly speaking, in these circumstances the vendor is entitled to pursue a claim for indemnity from their insurer, notwithstanding the existence of an uncompleted contract.

With regard to the purchaser’s interest:

(i)         a purchaser may insure for the full value of the property and recover the full amount of any damage occasioned to it; and

(ii)        a purchaser’s insurer is not entitled to delay payment until after completion of the contract.

Based upon the previously made assumptions of a keen purchaser and a valid contract, and provided there is no delay in settlement, the conventional position is for the purchaser to settle the contract and thereafter claim under their policy. This is arguably the best approach as it avoids complications arising from claim payments initially made to the vendor by their insurer, which subsequently have to be disgorged.

In my experience, where both parties to a transaction are insured and a loss occurs, if the transaction is proceeding, then it is common sense to only claim against the purchaser’s policy. It goes without saying, that Section 50 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)[14] would have no relevant application where the purchaser has its own insurance[15].

A complication that can arise, but thankfully not often, is where a purchaser has taken out cover but their claim is denied, thereby leaving only the vendor’s policy to claim against.

Based on the wording in Section 50(1)(f), Section 50 would not apply so long as the purchaser’s policy is not void ab initio[16] by reason of fraud or the like. The statutory cover afforded effectively ends at the time of commencement of the insurance cover effected by the purchaser. Therefore, provided that cover exists and has commenced, no statutory cover is available under Section 50 even though the claim is rejected[17].

Matters may be complicated even further when interested third parties are taken into account, but these are outside the scope of this text.

I hope this goes some way to explain things.



YellowMannings Six Principles of General Insurance is available here.

[1]     Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), Reprint 10 effective from 26 August 2009.

[2]     Ibid.

[3]     Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), Act No. 80 of 1984 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 73 of 2008.

[4]     Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), Reprint 10 effective from 26 August 2009.

[5]     For a discussion of the relationship between Section 50 and Sections 66K, M and N of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), see Stephenson v State Bank of NSW, (1996) NSWSC, Court of Appeal, unreported, 7 May 1996.

[6]     Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), Act No. 80 of 1984 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 73 of 2008.

[7]     Lukies v Ripley, (1994) NSWSC, Young J, unreported, 22 June 1994.

[8]     Section 66M of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).

[9]     Cusmano v Pinner & Ors (1998) Federal Court, Carr J, unreported, 5 August 1998.

[10]    In any event, the judge did not consider the point was material to the case.

[11]    Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), Act No. 80 of 1984 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 73 of 2008.

[12]    Ibid.

[13]    See Kern Corporation v Walter Retrading (1987) 163 CLR 164.

[14]    Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), Act No. 80 of 1984 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 73 of 2008.

[15]    See Kern Corporation v Walter Retrading (1987) 163 CLR 164.

[16]    Latin meaning ‘from the beginning’.

[17]    Samut R., 2004, “Insurable Interest What Does that Mean to Vendors & Purchasers?”, unpublished paper delivered at the Brisbane Insurance Forum, 12 May 2004.



Read Me View comments

Beware of Changes in Liability Policies

I have noticed that there has been a few insurers that have been altering their exclusions under Liability and/or the Liability Section in their Business Pack policies.

The change is in the Defamation, Libel and Slander exclusion. One of the ones that has changed reads:

Slander Concept.Defamation, Libel, Slander

in respect of the Cover provided under Section –

 Public and Products Liability:

the publication or utterance of a libellous, slanderous or defamatory remark:

a. made prior to the Period of Cover;

b. made by You or at Your direction and/or with knowledge of its falsity; or

c. related to advertising, broadcasting, publishing, telecasting activities or on-line social media activities conducted by You or on Your behalf.

When I draft a wording I change a lot of  because the intention of Insurers is to exclude liability under sub-clause (c) where advertising and the like is the core business or profession of the insured.

If it is an ancillary part of an Insured’s business and they are not conducting these activities as a separate business, then it is a risk requiring cover the same as with any material put up on their website which may have a false comparison of somebody else’s product by mistake.

I feel it is too harsh to exclude advertising liability at one fell swoop from all clients. It would be so much better if it were removed by endorsement for certain industries using the occupation codes.

Regrettably, I am seeing more and more of this sort of thing happening. I recently wrote about the Hot Works Exclusion as another example.

Read Me View comments

Thanks for the Positive Feeback

ClaimsComparison logoI have received a lot of positive feedback on both the widening of and the new eBook that Steve and I wrote on Cyber Security and Insurance.

Many brokers are commenting that some insurers have become very difficult to deal with in claims, particularly on larger losses and this site helps explain the importance of claims service to their customers.

With the ClaimsComparison website, many brokers and other organisations, including insurers, have requested that they be allowed to have a link on their site. I and the team at LMI are happy for this to happen and if you would like to obtain a free jpeg of the Trade Mark button to use as the link please write to me at and I will arrange for one to be sent to you.

cyber book with your logoWith the eBook, again, several brokers have asked if they can co-badge the book, which is, again, quite easy to do. There  is a modest cost to cover the work of our graphic designer but then the book can be used as an eBook or is ready for printing as a hard copy book. To view the standard eBook version or any of the others in the eBook series please click here.

Read Me View comments

New Comparisons Available on





As a service to LMI’s valued subscribers, I now list  the policy comparisons that have been added to the LMI PolicyComparison website in the last month. This list is only the generic wordings and not any for cluster groups or international brokers, which have viewing restrictions. You can now view comparisons listed below at if you are a subscriber to the service.

5 Star Underwriting Agency Motor Dealers Insurance Solution – V9075_0714
Allianz Annual Construction – Annual – POL257BA_0612
Allianz Annual Construction – Single Projects – POL258BA_0612
Allianz Business Pack – POL061BAFI_0614
Allianz Motor Fleet Insurance – POL428BA_0713
Allianz Motor Trades Pack – POL265BAFI_0614
Allianz Prestige Home Insurance (Intermediary Only) – POL014BA_0714
Allianz Prestige Motor Insurance (Intermediary Only) – POL011BA_0514
Allianz Public and Products Liability Insurance – POL106BA_0513
Allianz Retailers Pack – POL248BAFI_0614
Allianz Trades and Services Pack – POL063BAFI_0614
Ansvar Insurance Limited Essential Cover Vital Home Insurance – POL592FIANS_0714
Ansvar Insurance Limited Home Cover Classic Home Insurance – POL591FIANS_0714
Ansvar Insurance Limited Maxi Cover Prestige Home Insurance – POL590FIANS_0714
Berkley Insurance Australia Construction Industry Professional Indemnity Insurance – BIA-ConstructionPI_1014
Budget Direct Smart Home and Contents Insurance – Budget-SmartHome_1014
Catholic Church Insurance Limited Classic Home Building and Contents Insurance – POL437FICC_0714
Catholic Church Insurance Limited Prestige Home Building and Contents Insurance – POL436FICC_0714
Catholic Church Insurance Limited Vital Home Building and Contents Insurance – POL438FICC_0714
CGU Insurance Ltd Countrypak Insurance – CV404_REV5_0614
CGU Insurance Ltd Countrypak Insurance – CV404_REV5_0914
CGU Insurance Ltd Motor Trade Insurance – MT00002_REV3_0808
CGU Insurance Ltd Padlock Insurance Policy – CID0192_REV3_1113
Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Ltd PeopleSure Corporate Travel Insurance – 14CTPDSPWV1_0614
CIL Insurances Secure Caravan and RV Insurance – CIL2882_0914
Commercial and Trucksure Fleet and Heavy Haulage Policy – QM1954_1011
Complete Strata Insurance Commercial Strata Insurance – CSI_0612
Dual Australia Pty Ltd Professional Indemnity Accountants Policy – DUAL-PI-Acct_0814
Freeman McMurrick Pty Ltd Securus Motor Vehicle Insurance – FMM0055_0514
GIO General Limited Boat Insurance – 04902_1014
GIO General Limited Car Insurance – 04795_1014
GIO General Limited Caravan Insurance – 21897_1014
GIO General Limited Home and Contents Insurance – 12318_1014
GIO General Limited Landlord Insurance – 22217_1014
GIO General Limited Strata Insurance – 05127_1014
Lumley Insurance Commercial Business Package – PACPDS55002_0714
Lumley Insurance Fleet Heavy Vehicle Motor Insurance – MHTPDS30001_0814
Lumley Insurance Home Cover – PLHPDS90000_0514
Lumley Insurance Management Liability – PLIPDS65000_0414
Millennium Underwriting Agencies Pty Ltd Residential Strata/Community Corporation Insurance – ResStrataCommunity_0714
NRMA Insurance Boat Insurance – G010043_0914
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Caravan Insurance – QM1991_0914
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Carriers Combined Load (Accidental Damage) – QM0091_0907
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Commercial Retail Industrial – QM163_0714
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Transport Operators Insurance – QM892_0714
RACV Boat Insurance – G010046_0914
RACWA Building Contents and Personal Valuable Insurance – RACI014_1014
Resilium Transport Package Policy – R00039_0614
SGIC Boat Insurance – G010044_0914
SGIC Caravan and Trailer Insurance – G012867_0914
SGIO Boat Insurance – G010045_0914
SGIO Caravan and Trailer Insurance – G012866_0914
TIO Trades Pack Insurance – TradesPack_0113
Vero (Australia) Contract Works and Legal Liability Policy – V4726_0314
Vero (Australia) Contract Works Legal Liability Policy – V8556_1012A
Westpac (Australia) Car Insurance – V7799_0914
WFI Landlord Plan – LPLPDS-03_0714
Youi Insurance Watercraft Insurance – Watercraft_0914
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited Aged Care Liability Insurance – PCUS-008929_V2_0514

We take this opportunity to remind you that the LMI PolicyComparison website offers more than policy comparisons. Visit the site to view our extensive policy library, Standard & Poors’ financial strength ratings, a list of alternative markets and more.

When you consider the amount to research, write up and then have the comparison checked by a second researcher, for just one policy, you get an idea of the amount of time. LMI spend in bringing you this service.

Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact any of the LMI PolicyComparison team.


Read Me View comments