Blog question – ISR Mark IV or Mark V, which is better?

I received this question which is not that easy to answer.

On more than one occasion I have come up against a competing broker who states to clients that Mark V is better than the Mark IV therefore even if the Mark IV terms are more competitive the client has been so bamboozled they believe it. What is your view, is the Mark V better than the Mark IV? If so, why is Mark IV mainstream and so very few brokers use Mark V? Discussions with underwriters are that the Mark IV is the preferred.

Mark (Name and email provided)

I think the best place to start is with a bit of history. The Industrial Special Risks (“ISR”) Mark IV Advisory was introduced in 1987 for two main reasons.

  1. In an attempt to stop the massive under declaration that was going on within the industry. This was happening as the test for co-insurance, up until that time, was on all assets across all locations. As such, the cost of doing a valuation on all the buildings, all the contents and the stock of a large client with multiple locations was greater than the value of most claims and so the test was not being done. The Mark IV fixed this by making the test at the location of the loss. In exchange, co-insurance was dropped from 90% to 85% on Material Damage claims. On Business Interruption it remained at 100%. As an aside, this was changed to 80% on both Material Damage and Business Interruption in line with Business Pack policies.
  2. There was a need for standardization. Reinsurers, insurers, brokers and loss adjusters were constantly being caught out by the fact that there was no standardization. By having one standard contract which could be altered by endorsement, made it better for all parties concerned.

By 1990, a number of errors in the 1987 Mark IV Advisory wording, as it became to be known, were identified. This lead to a new committee to review the wording and ultimately meant the introduction of the Mark V (Advisory) wording.

This, to me, is a much better worded document, in that it is easier to read, but it was a complete reshuffle of the sections and there were some major changes that brokers in the main did not like.

This led to two things happening. The first was, to me 28 important changes were made to the Mark IV wording to create the Mark IV Modified wording. One of the changes was the burglary losses had to be reported to the police.

The second was that a second version of the Mark V ISR wording, the Mark V Modified wording, was introduced which kept the structure but brought the cover back in line with the Mark IV Advisory.

In the research I carried out writing my 3 volume text on the Industrial Special Risks policy, I identified just over 200 differences in the 4 versions of the wordings. I prepared a table which is in Volume 3 of the ISR book set which shows all the difference.

So which is better?

There is no one answer here. Both policies are now over 20 years old and have stood the test of time although major changes have been or are currently being made to both.

Why there is no right answer is that neither is designed to fully protect any single industry let alone any single insured. The idea behind the policy is to be the foundation of a tailored policy that provides the required protection to the Insured while providing an adequate premium to the insurers accepting the risk. As such, there are, at last count, over 600 endorsements to the Mark IV and over 400 for the Mark V.

Both policies can be tailored by someone who understands the policy to provide the same protection as the other.

Across the market, I believe that there are many more Mark IV wordings in all its current variations in place and as a general rule of thumb I would say more people are comfortable with this wording than the Mark V.

Having said that, some brokers prefer the Mark V and are very conversant with it.

Sorry there is no simple answer here. Both can provide great protection if tailored to the clients needs. Both can leave a client unprotected if not tailored by a skilled professional.

There are three common things that can lead to problems. The first is to just continue on with the same coverage as last year. I see schedules that have not had the sub-limits and endorsements reviewed for years and they are no longer appropriate for that client.

Secondly, the Limit of Liability is set based solely on the Declared Value of a single location. There has to be adjustments for the additional benefits and possible escalation between the date of the start of the policy and when reinstatement of a destroyed asset finally takes place. LMI have a Limit of Liability Calculator on LMI RiskCoach and LMI PolicyCoach to assist brokers get this right.

Finally, where a broker simply copies quotes from one ISR to another. Particularly from the Mark IV to the Mark V or vice versa. The policies and endorsements are different and they need to be treated differently.

I hope this helps in your understanding.

Read Me View comments

Addressing the lack of understanding about Compulsory Third Party (‘CTP’) insurance often referred to as Green Slip insurance

Steve Manning, an old friend Mike Quinlan and I are concerned at the many reports that have come out recently about the lack of understanding about CTP insurance.

With this in mind, Mike is preparing a guest post and Steve is preparing a short video on the topic for his Insurance Bites YouTube Channel.

I will let everyone know as soon as they are up and ready for viewing.

Read Me 1

Are Interest Costs claimable as an Increased or Additional Increased Cost of Working?

This is a question often put to me as some loss adjusters and insurers push back when it is claimed.

If I start with the actual wording from the Australian Industrial Special Risks policy which is found in many other policies, it reads:

“The Insurance under this Item is limited to Loss of Gross Profit due to: (a) Reduction in Turnover; and (b) Increase in Cost of Working, and the amount payable as indemnity there under shall be:…

…The additional expenditure necessarily and reasonably incurred for the sole purpose of avoiding or diminishing the reduction in Turnover which, but for that expenditure, would have taken place during the Indemnity Period in consequence of the Damage, but not exceeding the sum produced by applying the Rate of Gross Profit to the amount of the reduction thereby avoided.”

If the Insured needs to pay a deposit on replacement stock or machinery or even make a fortnightly pay-roll and need to borrow funds to keep the business afloat, while the business has been disrupted due to an Insured Event, or because the Insurer has not made sufficient progress payments to allow them to fund this expenditure from insurance monies, then to me, in any interpretation of the Increased Cost of Working definition, the Insured is entitled to claim the additional interest that they have incurred in consequence of the damage.

I stress, the interest expenditure cannot be existing interest, for that should be included as an Insured standing charge in any event and be fully covered under the Item No. 1 (a). The two tests, being sole purpose test and economic limit test, obviously would both apply.

In view of the relatively low interest rates that are currently being charged around the world, I do not expect that the interest charges, unless the claim was protracted for an extended period of time and the amount borrowed was significant, would not pass the economic limit test. If it did not, or the Insured only had additional increased cost of working cover only, then the Insured would be able to make the claim under “Item No. 4 (Additional) Increased of Cost of Working”.

This reads:

The insurance under this item is limited to increase in cost of working (not otherwise recoverable hereunder) necessarily and reasonably incurred during the Indemnity Period in consequence of the Damage for the purpose of avoiding or diminishing reduction in Turnover and/or resuming and/or maintaining normal business operations and/or services.

Here, the coverage goes further and states that the expenditure only has to be made to maintain normal business operations. Therefore, it goes without saying that if the insured had to borrow additional funds to maintain normal business operations and/or services then the interest paid to do so would be an additional increased cost of working.

Claims for this item are a relatively new phenomenon, typically brought about by the fact that some insurers are no longer willing to make reasonable progress payments to assist the insured during the initial phases of a loss. In fact, some insurers insist that the Insured incur the costs under Material Damage before they will reimburse them. In such cases, if their insurer has failed them and they have had to rely on the banking or other finance sector and incurred a cost to do so, then surely this is a legitimate Increased Cost of Working. To deny such a claim is a clear case of wanting the cake and eating it too.

To me, this is such an obvious increased cost of working, I cannot understand why it is being refused so often.

Perhaps, if it continues the only alternative will be to have it tested by the courts, but to me, it is a lay down misere.

 

Read Me View comments

Guest Post: Steven Manning – Another New General Insurance Product Class introduced on LMI RiskCoach

Only a week after the launch of Corporate travel the team are back at it again, be it in the background for months, on the launch of yet another class of insurance, Product Recall and Product Contamination insurance. With the addition of these new classes onto the system, users can now research 14 classes of General Insurance through their LMI RiskCoach Subscriptions.

The reasoning behind the addition of this all-important class is to erase the misconception held by many small to medium businesses that believe that Product recall and contamination covers are included as part of their Product Liability insurance which is, of course, not the case with product liability insurance not covering the recall costs but rather just the liabilities arising out of the incident.

The new content touches on a vast number of areas including policy features, coverage and malicious tampering. It also goes into detail around the regulations under the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010 (CCA) that deem any importer of items into Australia to be the manufacturer, this relates to a huge product recall exposure that many of these businesses do not know they are accepting and could easily mean the end of their business.

The system not only points out the risks associated with Recalls and Contamination but provides Risk Management steps which can be easily implemented into any business faced with these exposures. These steps will significantly reduce the chances of an event occurring and assist in managing the process more efficiently and effectively should a recall occur.

With recall costs on the rise it has never been a better time to have this class added to the RiskCoach system and more importantly to have that discussion with the insured.

One last final note, a big thank you to all of those involved who have made this happen. We have a lot of people working away in the background that make these services and improvements possible! Thank you again!

 

By Steven Manning of LMI Group

Read Me View comments

Meth Labs pose an additional risk for Property Owners and Real Estate Agents

A staggering number of rented properties in Australia and New Zealand are being used for the illegal manufacture of the drug Methamphetamine turning the home into a clandestine Meth Lab.

The question then arises what steps are reasonable for a property owner and or their real estate agents to ensure the property is free from any contaminate left by such an operation. Some matters It is not always possible to see physical evidence during a routine property inspection.

Is it still reasonable to carry out a physical inspection alone or is it now prudent to carry out a test every time a tenant exits a property before a new tenant is allowed in. Is a home test available from some pharmacies enough? or should an expert in testing for the residue of a Meth Lab be engaged?

Then, of course, there is the question of insurance. Just looking at the Real Estate Agent for a minute, a large number of Professional Indemnity Policies exclude losses arising from contamination. You need to check for any endorsements added to the schedule that may take away the cover that appears to be covered in the policy itself.

I therefore urge insurance brokers to check the policies and schedules they have with their real estate clients and offer such clients to determine if this is an exclusion or not. Do not forget that you can always use the ‘Search by Product Feature” option in LMI PolicyComparison.com for either the Australian or New Zealand policies.

To learn more about the risk caused by Meth Labs please check out Steve Manning’s special report on his Insurance Bites YouTube channel. I enclose a link here for your convenience.

Read Me 1

Self driving cars ARE the future.

As has been reported in the news today, Uber has suspended its self driving car testing after a pedestrian was hit and killed in the state of Arizona, United States.

I said in a 2016 blog and I still maintain that, there is no doubt there will be accidents and deaths as the technology is developed, but there is already clear evidence that self driving cars are becoming more and more safe and if you consider the number of miles that have already been driven by self driving vehicles and the fact that, to my knowledge, only two people have died during this entire period, I do hope that lessons will be learned from this tragic death, but the development will continue for the greater good of us all. 

Read Me 2 Comments

RISK AND THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN HISTORY, SEVILLE 2019

As many of you know, I thoroughly enjoy researching the history of general insurance and the conference in 2019 in Seville, Spain is of great interest to me.

Professor Robin Pearson, who was a key note speaker at the Bengkulu conference to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Principle of Utmost Good Faith, is a co-host of the upcoming conference to be held at the University in Seville.

The links below are call for papers, which allows anyone to submit as well as papers that have been accepted.

If anyone has any particular questions please don’t hesitate to let me know, and if I cannot answer it, I will pass it along to Prof Pearson.

Sessions detailed information

Call for papers

Accepted Sessions

Read Me View comments

When does the Indemnity Period end?

At LMI Group, we have an issue which comes across, almost in waves, in regards to a number of claims which needs to be addressed before the next flavour of the month adjustment to reduce an Insured’s claim.

The one we have just overcome is where the adjuster has made a “notion” adjustment, without explaining the basis for it. Now, we have come across on a number of claims, particularly involving restaurants, clubs and hotels is for the indemnity period to be cut off by the loss adjuster and then the Insured being asked to prove that the loss extends beyond the period allowed by the adjuster and then also prove that the ongoing disruption is as a direct result of the damage or other insured event which gave rise to the initial claim.

One of the great frustrations for us is that often this judgment call is being made by a Forensic Accountant or an adjuster who has not been to the site, met the insured, or if they have, it has been only one short visit. Without understanding the insured’s business, their assumption that the business should have been back to normal may well be completely ill founded and at times appears to be linked to the fact that the initial reserve placed on the disruption by the adjuster or forensic accountant has proved to be inadequate. That means the claim is then being adjusted within the confines of that initial reserve.

With this background, I thought that it was appropriate to review the typical Business Interruption cover and in particular, to look at the onus of proof issue.

There are differences in the market with business interruption policies and so, for the sake of this exercise, I will use the Industrial Special Risks (“ISR”) Mark IV Modified wording.

The trigger for a claim under Business Interruption under the Mark IV ISR reads:

In the event of any building or any other property or any part thereof used by the Insured at the Premises for the purpose of the Business being physically lost, destroyed or damaged by any cause or event not hereinafter excluded (loss, destruction or damage so caused being hereinafter termed “Damage”) and the Business carried out by the Insured being in consequence thereof interrupted or interfered with, the Insurer(s) will, subject to the provisions of this Policy including the limitation on the Insurer(s) liability, pay to the Insured the amount of loss resulting from such interruption or interference in accordance with the applicable Basis of Settlement.

Assuming that the loss falls within the triggering provision of the policy, it advises that the claim will be settled in accordance with the “applicable Basis of Settlement”. The Basis of Settlement reads:

The insurance under this item is limited to actual loss of Gross Profit due to: (a) Reduction in Turnover and (b) Increase in Cost of Working and the amount payable as indemnity thereunder shall be:

(a)   In respect of Reduction in Turnover:

the sum produced by applying the Rate of Gross Profit to the amount by which the Turnover during the Indemnity Period shall, in consequence of the Damage, fall short of the Standard Turnover.

(b)  In respect of Increase in Cost of Working:

the additional expenditure necessarily and reasonably incurred for the sole purpose of avoiding or diminishing the reduction in Turnover which, but for that expenditure, would have taken place during the Indemnity Period in consequence of the Damage, but not exceeding the sum produced by applying the Rate of Gross Profit to the amount of the reduction thereby avoided.

In both Section (a) and Section (b), the policy makes note that the Insured is to be indemnified during the Period of Indemnity. It is therefore important, that we look at the definition of Indemnity, which reads:

INDEMNITY PERIOD: The period beginning with the occurrence of the Damage and ending not later than the number of months specified in the Schedule thereafter during which the results of the Business shall be affected in consequence of the Damage.

In Summary, this definition states that the Policy starts on the date of the Damage, which may be before any disruption to the business starts and ends when the business is no longer effected in consequence of the Damage, or the number of months stated in the Schedule.

Often, it is a case of res ipsa loquitur which simply means, the facts speak for themselves.

Naturally, as part of the calculation and/or assessing process, the person preparing the claim and/or assessing the claim, would carry out tests to determine whether or not some other factor has arisen which has caused a downturn in the business, and for that matter, may have caused an upturn of the business, unrelated to the Damage which would have taken place had the Damage not occurred.

The reasoning behind this, is that at its heart, the traditional business interruption policy is a contract of indemnity. That is, of course, to put the Insured back to near as money will allow to the position they would have enjoyed but for the loss. I stress that this is the underlying principle of the majority of business interruption policies in the market, however, there are some policies which are in fact agreed value policies, where the Policy stipulates a formula which may well over or under indemnify the insured.

To ensure that the principle of indemnity is maintained, the policy contains what to me is arguably the most important clause in the contract of insurance and the one that creates the greatest conflict between the insured and the insurer.

This clause is the adjustments clause, which reads:

Adjustments shall be made to the Rate of Gross Profit, Annual Turnover, Standard Turnover and Rate of Pay-Roll as may be necessary to provide for the trend of the Business and for variations in or other circumstances affecting the Business either before or after the Damage or which would have affected the Business had the Damage not occurred, so that the figures thus adjusted shall represent as nearly as may be reasonably practicable the results which, but for the Damage, would have been obtained during the relative period after the Damage.

While the Indemnity Period is not specifically mentioned in the clause, what is in effect occurring when the indemnity period is being cut short, is that the insurer or their agent is suggesting that the turnover that would have been achieved had the business not been affected by the Damage, would have been reduced for some other event, and as such, the period of disruption caused by the Damage is at an end.

Just as an insurer would take a dim view of an insured who came along with an unsubstantiated request to increase the standard turnover of the business, I’m of firm belief that if the insurer or their agent suggests that there is a special circumstance that reduces the standard turnover, then the onus of proof is on the insurer to prove this and not simply make an unsubstantiated claim that the business ought to have been back at that point.

I’m the first to admit that the adjustments clause is not an exact science and that no one can ever be 100% certain as to what the business would have achieved but for the loss, other than in the rarest of circumstances. There is always room for negotiation but both sides ought to provide some logical reason for any adjustment that they wish to make to the standard turnover. For the sake of completeness, I include the definition of standard turnover which reads:

STANDARD TURNOVER: The Turnover during that period in the 12 months immediately before the date of the Damage which corresponds with the Indemnity Period.

To further put this into perspective, the position I hold is that it is inappropriate for an insurer or their agent to simply say that the business should have been returned to normal, say a week after a restaurant reopens when the business had a track record of performing well prior to the event and has recovered to their pre-damaged position at a period longer than was expected by the insurer for the Indemnity Period to be cut off unilaterally and the Insured required to prove that the ongoing disruption beyond their stipulated cut off point is as a result of the Damage.

In fairness, how can this ever be proved?

It leaves the insured in a helpless position, starved of cash and with no logical way they can prove the ongoing loss, other than for the fact that their revenue has not returned to normal. Whether I am acting as a loss adjuster or claims preparer, my role would be to carry out an analysis and look at industry figures, the possibility of new competitors entering the market and all other factors to see whether the position I have adopted in my calculation of the claim is fair and reasonable to all parties concerned.

I have never attempted to cut off an Indemnity Period without any reasonable foundation for doing so. It appears that we will be taking at least one of our current claims to court to examine this whole issue of onus of proof and I look forward to the outcome which may resolve this, to me, inequitable position that many insureds are confronting.

 

Read Me 1

SCAM WARNING

I recently received an email warning about a new credit card scam. Read below so you don’t get stung.

 

The following is a recounting of the incident from the victim:

Wednesday a week ago, I had a phone call from someone saying that he was from some outfit called: “Express Couriers,”(The name could be any courier company) He asked if I was going to be home because there was a package for me that required a signature .

The caller said that the delivery would arrive at my home in roughly an hour. Sure enough, about an hour later, a uniformed delivery man turned up with a beautiful basket of flowers and a bottle of wine. I was very surprised since there was no special occasion or holiday, and I certainly didn’t expect anything like it. Intrigued, I inquired as to who the sender was.

The courier replied, “I don’t know, I’m only delivering the package.”

Apparently, a card was being sent separately… (the card has never arrived!) There was also a consignment note with the gift.

He then went on to explain that because the gift contained alcohol, there was a $3.50 “delivery/ verification charge,” providing proof that he had actually delivered the package to an adult (of legal drinking age), and not just left it on the doorstep where it could be stolen or taken by anyone, especially a minor.

This sounded logical and I offered to pay him cash. He then said that the delivery company required payment to be by credit or debit card only, so that everything is properly accounted for, and this would help in keeping a legal record of the transaction.

He added couriers don’t carry cash to avoid loss or likely targets for robbery.

My husband, who by this time was standing beside me, pulled out his credit card, and ‘John,’ the “delivery man,” asked him to swipe the card on a small mobile card machine with a small screen and keypad. Frank, my husband, was asked to enter his PIN number and a receipt was printed out. He was given a copy of the transaction.

The guy said everything was in order, and wished us good day.

To our horrible surprise, between Thursday and the following Monday,  $4,000 had been charged/withdrawn from our credit/debit
account at various ATM machines.

Apparently the “mobile credit card machine,” which the deliveryman carried now had all the info necessary to create a “dummy”  card with all our card details including the PIN number.

Upon finding out about the illegal transactions on our card, we immediately notified the bank which issued us a new card, and our credit/debit  account was closed.

We also personally went to the Police, where it was confirmed that it is definitely a scam because several households had been similarly hit.

WARNING: Be wary of accepting any “surprise gift or package,” which you neither expected nor personally ordered, especially if it involves any  kind of payment as a condition of receiving the gift or package. Also, never accept anything if you do not personally know or there is no proper identification of who the sender is.

Above all, the only time you should give out any personal credit/debit card information is when you yourself initiated the purchase or transaction!

Read Me View comments

Cheapest is not always best – Lessons for procurement officers

I spend much of my time speaking at conferences for various industries, where I encourage the business owners not to purchase their business insurance on price, but to carefully consider how important their insurance program is and the protection that it offers.

Increasingly, over the last few years. I have been questioning the true value of a procurement officer, for regardless of what the tenders say, it seems to come solely down to price, without considering the true value that a good service provider to the insurer provides, nor the cost of what getting it wrong does to the average claims cost and potentially to the brand of the insurer and insurance in general.

I will give two examples to demonstrate what seems to be happening more and more.

The first involves a couple in their 70’s who have had their home destroyed during a bushfire over 4 years ago. Clearly, the builder that won the rebuild never expected to win the job and thought the matter would be cash settled. They were then horrified to find that they in fact had won the tender to rebuild. After 2 years, work had not started on the property and the Insured, naturally, complained. The builders found themselves busy at that time and engaged another building firm to do the work and it went along swimmingly until the first progress payment went in from the second builder to the first and they realised that they were going to lose more money in having someone else do the work than they themselves completing it. The first builder, original tender winner, dismissed the second builder and took the project on. Sadly, they did not start doing any work since the dismissal of the first builder, by which time I was then asked to get involved rather than the client go to the media.

I carried out an inspection of the property and then attempted to meet with the claims officer concerned to express some very valid concerns of the Insured and items that I had seen during my site visit. My first email was ignored, so I sent a follow up one setting out just some of the issues, three of which were:

  1. Between the second and first builder, the floor had been propped up in the centre of the home with nothing more than a piece of 19mm x 35mm pine framing. This may have been acceptable while the home was being built to floor level, but once the upper level was on it, the floor had bowed by at least 10mm and I was concerned that when the home was jacked up to be made level again, any works inside including plaster finishes, tiling etc may crack.
  2. The builder had held discussions with the Insured and it was agreed that the home would be rendered at the Insured’s expense. No credit however had been given for the fact that the builder would therefore be able to use seconds bricks rather than first quality as originally quoted/agreed.
  3. Because the home had been left without a roof covering for so long, there was mould clearly visible on the floor, framework and particularly between the floor plate and the floor.

I got a very disappointing reply back suggesting that to the untrained eye the timber prop may appear dangerous, but it wasn’t, and secondly that the bricks were not seconds but mixed, and thirdly they completely ignored the mould.

Ultimately, an engineer confirmed that not only was the timber ‘support’ dangerous as I predicted, but was so weak that it may have caused the entire home to collapse. The claim officer had also misunderstood the difference between seconds bricks, being that they were not first, and second hand bricks which means they came from another site. The day after they received my letter, the builder was advised and immediately sheared up all the framework, hiding the mould that I had pointed out, without treating it first. Because of the hype around mould at the time, coupled with the age of the Insured’s (I would remind you they are in their 70’s and the wife quite frail), I thought I would have it tested. I then received a note advising I had vandalised the home.

I took the entire issue to the national head of claims for that particular insurer and while someone with more experienced was appointed, it still took a full 15 months to get resolved with the insurer agreeing to cash settle the claim. The cost of the claim had blown out by several hundred thousand dollars, combined with the fact that they will be paying rent until they can get a new home built themselves.

Insurance should be there to help people in their time of need.

This was a completely innocent fire from the Insured’s perspective (it was clear it was from the bushfire) and they will have been without a home for coming up to their 4th Christmas. This is unacceptable in anyone’s language.

The second example, involves an insured who had water damage in their home. Rather than engaging a loss adjuster to oversee the claim, the insurer decided to save money and send out a restoration company. It took 8 days for the company to even attend site, and rather than take a detailed inventory, they simply packed everything up, put it into a shipping container and assured the Insured that it would be unpacked at their warehouse, separated between wet and dry and that the wet items would be cleaned carefully and sterilized.

6 months later, it was found that the items were still in the shipping container and a vast majority of the contents, even those that were not originally damaged by water, had become affected by moisture and mould etc. Some antique furniture which had been beautifully French polished had been stripped back and sprayed with a cheap lacquer. Here, the insurer is trying to distance themselves from their agents, which of course, is unconscionable. Here again, a claim has blown out dramatically due to poor service delivery.

These are just two claims that have come across my desk, and for every one that does, I question how many others are out there. In both of these cases, how many people have these insureds discussed and expressed their disappointment with the insurance industry and the particular brands involved. The first one I had to get LMI Legal involved to resolve, and it appears from the approach on the latest water damage case, I will have to do the same, for at this stage there still appears to be absolutely no empathy for the Insureds position whatsoever.

While I am annoyed with the claim process, I think it all starts at the procurement stage. Buying services is not like buying washing machines. If you have a highly competent professional who has studied, has years of experience, then of course their hourly rate is going to be slightly higher if they are honest and only charge the hours they work. The existing procurement process, appears to favour the shortcut takers, or those who cheat the hours. Either way, the insurer misses out on engaging the right person for the job.

What disappoints me, and I feel should be called out more is that despite this being a huge dispute, the Insured has not been given any advice of the internal complaints procedure, their rights with the Financial Ombudsmen Service (FOS) etc. This confirms one of the many examples I have that some insurers are able to obtain a better rating with FOS.

Read Me 3 Comments