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 View comments

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

Northern Territory Insurance Conference

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Northern Territory Insurance Conference. The sole aim of this conference is to provide education for the Northern Territory Insurance Community with no charge for attendees. Big thank you and well for a seamless and professional conference organised by Young Insurance Professionals (YIPS), led by Katie Mc Gettigan and John Vanarey.

Special thanks also to the sponsors who make the whole thing possible. With the number of requests companies receive for donations each year this is certainly a great cause in assisting with educating our next generation of insurance professionals in the NT, which is so vital to the protection and success of our communities.

Congratulations to those winners at the event, listed below.

 

Claims Professional of the Year Award

Winner: Tim Graham, TIO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Service Provider Professional of the Year Award

Winner: Michael Buckley, M&J Builders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senior Sales & Underwriting Professional of the Year Award

Winner: Michelle Johnson, Allianz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senior Broker Professional of the Year Award

Winner: Stewart Cox, Gallaghers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Young Insurance Professional (Broker and Insurer) of the Year Award

Winner: Alana Brown, MGA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Me View comments

Blog Reader Question: Business Interruption Gross Profit Calculation

I received the following question from a reader and reproduce it and my answer below for you all:

Dear Mr Manning,
There is something I may be missing in the calculation of Gross Profit under the BI policy.

The policy states:
GROSS PROFIT
the amount by which:
(a)      the sum of the Turnover and the amount of the Closing Stock and Work in Progress shall exceed
(b)      the sum of the amount of the Opening Stock and Work in Progress and the amount of the Uninsured Working Expenses as set out in the Schedule.
Why does it start with the opening stock?
Closing stock less production plus opening stock will give as a result production available for sale. If the Gross Profit I need to know refers to products sold then I calculate, for example, the cost of raw materials used in the product sold as: Opening stock of raw materials plus raw materials purchased less Closing stocks opening stock.  The resulting amount less turnover will comprise all costs and expenses from which I deduct not insurable cost and expenses. I shall be obliged if can explain me the policy definition and if I am wrong or missing something.

Thank you very much for the attention you may give to this query-
Carlos [last name and email withheld]

 

I replied to Carlos as follows:

We add closing stock to the turnover to the business to get one figure.

From this new combined figure you deduct the sum on opening stock and the expenses, such as purchases you do not need to insure.

If I am reading your question right you are asking about opening and closing stock.

What the formula is doing is looking to include the difference in the opening and closing stock as this is another form of profit.

For example if a business was to increase its stock level from say $50,000 at purchase price at the start of the accounting period to $100,000 at the end. The value of the business if everything else stayed the same would be $50,000 more. ($100,000 closing stock -$50,000 opening stock)

This is profit to the company. One way to look at it, is, that the business chose to invest in more stock so they could provide a better service (faster or offer wider range than before). Whatever the reason this increase in stock is profit in the form of stock instead of cash but it is still valuable acne still profit reinvested in the form of stock.

I hope this helps.

Allan

Read Me View comments

Alarming Trends – Part 2: Reinstatement and Replacement Conditions vs Indemnity Conditions

Previously, we have addressed the topic of indemnity periods and I expressed my concern on the number of questions I have had come through from Insurance Brokers and Underwriters where the indemnity period for a client was being reduced in this time of increasing rates.

Another issue which has resurfaced as a result of these rate increases is the move to reduce the cover from reinstatement replacement conditions, to indemnity conditions.

Up until the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the vast majority of insurance policies were settled on indemnity conditions. One of the great innovations and improvements in insurance was to move to reinstatement and replacement conditions, also known as ‘new for old’. This proved, and continues to prove, to be an enormous benefit to an Insured who in the event of a partial or total loss, does not have to find the funds to make up the difference between the, let’s call it market value for the sake of convenience, than the actual cost of replacement.

Subsequently, the insurance industry went one step further by introducing extra costs of reinstatement, which meant not only did we bring the asset back to a condition as new, but also brought it up to date where required to meet any statutory or regulatory requirements.

Not only is there a significant financial benefit to the Insured in the event of a loss, there is also a significant saving in time for there is no need to have the haggle to agree indemnity value which in most cases is based on the replacement value, less an allowance for its age and condition (again, I stress that this is not universally across).

I find that in my discussions with Insureds that wish to consider this option, that they are thinking of a total loss situation and they are factoring in what I call the “it will never happen to me” syndrome. Most losses are partial, and the most common type of loss, say to a building, is not a fire but rather storm damage.

So, let’s say that an insured owns a commercial property and there is a hail storm and the roof requires replacement. If the Insured is reluctant to pay the premium on insurance, how will they feel when they have to meet the cost differential between the cost of a brand new roof, particular if it requires upgrading to meet requirements, and the depreciated replacement value based on the age and condition of the old roof.

If the building is only a few years old and there is going to be no depreciation anywhere, there is no benefit in insuring for indemnity conditions for the value between the replacement value and the depreciated replacement value will be negligible in any event. It is only when the building is older that there is any benefit in premium, but then the question is, at what cost to protection?

Another scenario that crops up is that an Insured, particularly in the manufacturing sector, makes the claim that if there was a total loss and they lost 46 production machines, they would move their operation to China and therefore there is no benefit in having reinstatement and replacement conditions. I again point out that most losses are partial. What happens if fire or water damage makes only 1 or 2 machines irreparable? Would the Insured move their operation overseas having only lost a small portion of the equipment in Australia? Invariably, the answer is no.

In my discussions with insureds where we have a meaningful discussion about the additional risk that is being accepted by the insured by moving from reinstatement and replacement to indemnity conditions that in the vast majority of cases when the Insured considers all the facts, they elect to remain with reinstatement and replacement conditions.

I can not recall a single claim that I have handled in my 45 year career where the Insured has been insured for indemnity conditions and where it is proved to be a good outcome for the business or the principal stakeholders.

 

Read Me View comments

Alarming Trends – Part 1: Indemnity Periods

Over the past month or so, I have been inundated with questions regarding moving from reinstatement and replacement conditions to indemnity, in reducing Sums Insured and reducing indemnity periods. Over the next couple of days, I will address each of these and I will start today with Indemnity Periods.

Back when I first wrote my blue book on Business Interruption insurance in 2001, I was often confronted with indemnity periods of 3 or 6 months and my aim with the book and training sessions, was to move to 12 months being the minimum. Since that time, it has become more and more apparent that 12 months is not sufficient even for many risks, particularly property owners and manufacturing risks. When I say property, this includes infrastructure such as airports and tourism resorts.

If you add to this the complexity of a natural disaster, where the resources of the insurance industry, along with builders, engineers, right down to town building and planning departments, this only exasperates an already crucial problem.

As such, over the last 5 – 10 years, I have really been pushing for indemnity periods, particularly on larger risks which are insured under an ISR, to have a minimum of 24 months or at least 18 month indemnity periods. Speaking to underwriters and brokers, it has been pleasing to see that this advice has been accepted by many insureds.

What is alarming me, is that with the rate increases which are filtering through of late, many clients and/or brokers are reducing the indemnity periods back to 12 months. Yes, there is a premium saving, however, at what risk?

Going beneath 12 months, I believe, is complete folly for the rating of business interruption insurance is not simply a pro rate based on the length of time set for the indemnity period.

Statistically, my research shows that about 75% of business interruption losses have a period of disruption of 3 months or less. As such, if a client was to insure for a 3 month indemnity period, no insurer in their right mind would charge 1/4 of the premium that 12 months cover would cost, for they are going to pick up 75% of the claims, and even with claims which extend beyond the 3 months, they are likely to pick up the biggest burden during that first 3 month period.

Typically, the difference in premium for a 6 month indemnity period and 12 month is less than 10% of the fire rate applied to the full 12 months Insurable Gross Profit figure.

When considering the indemnity period, I have set out under the heading “How long should I insure for?” in the BIExplained section of the LMI Business Interruption Calculator all the things that should be considered when setting an indemnity period. You will note, the cost of insurance is not one of the criteria.

Speaking to underwriters about the situation, one of the reasons they have had to increase the premium rate, is that they are not getting the growth in premiums that they require. This is because we are not increasing Sums Insured as we should each year. If we are going to reduce cover, this is only going to create more problems moving forward as insurers are forced to increase rates again to make up for the lost revenue of people reducing their coverage. I know in the property insurance for LMI Group, there is two things about the program, the first is that we tend to over insure for we see first hand what happens to businesses when they under insure and we would rather pay a little extra premium rather than risk not being fully indemnified in the event of a loss. Secondly, we review our insurances every year, this being the case, we have found our rate has been retained.

Next post, I will go into a bit of detail about the risk of moving from reinstatement and replacement to indemnity conditions.

Read Me View comments