Where has the social conscience of the insurance industry gone

LMI are attending a number of insurance claims arising out of the earthquake in New Zealand. More than one of the clients has had extensive damage to their building in the heart of Christchurch. This area has been for sometime the subject of a closure by public authority order.

In more than one case it could be said that had the client’s business not been effected, ie, their buidling and contents destroyed they would have made extra sales as the population of Christchurch replaced the home furnishing and other household items destroyed in the same earthquake.

Rather than honour the policy of insuance, some insurers and loss adjusters are saying that the closure by public authority extension applies as the Insured would not have been able to trade even if their premises where not damaged due to the fact it located in the “red’ zone. Closure by public authority is often an additional benefit under the policy which is now being used not as a benefit at all but a limitation of cover. In New Zealand, the limitation is 10% of the sum insured on each section of cover, ie, Gross Profit, Additional Increase In Cost of Working etc.

I appreciate that Business Interruption insurance is a contract of indemnity but if the business would have traded well but for the damage to their building they should be indemnified, not ripped off. I also appreciate the accumulation risk that earthquakes and floods create for insurers.

The insurers seem to forget that the damage to the Insured’s building(s) have contributed to the need to create the “red” zone. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does this mean that if a building was destroyed in stand alone fire and the police put up a barracade around the building that the Insured can only claim the prevention of access or closure by public authority limit. It really becomes a nonesense.

Why to people take out insurance. To protect themselves in the event of a loss, particularly a major loss. These clients have been paying premium to insurers for many many years. The city and their building/contents are destroyed or badly damaged by a major insured peril and when they go to claim they are begrudgingly paid 10% of their sum insured. There are few times when I am embarrassed to be associated with this industry I love but this is one of them!

Clearly one of these claims will need to be taken before the court for a determination and I can only hope that common sense and fair play prevail.

Interestingly, the UK loss adjusters and insurers are reluctant to rely on the principle in dealing with the London and UK riots.

For the sake of completeness I would advise that the US case on which those insurers that are attempting to limit their liability is Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni General S.p.a. (UK Branch) [2010 EWHC 1186 (Comm); decided on May 27, 2010]

 

8 responses to “Where has the social conscience of the insurance industry gone”

  1. Hey mate! Nice blog! I really liked reading it.

  2. griseldac2 says:

    dunno if this is ok to post, but it helped me small biz

  3. […] Last week I raised the issue that a number of policies now require the Insured to include the GST in the sum insured. Further, that sub-limits also include the GST. See Should the client include GST in their sum insured on Business Insurance? A couple of weeks before that I asked where had the insurance industries social conscience gone? […]

  4. […] Back on the 4th October 2011 I expressed my concern on the fact that some insurers and loss adjusters were using a single judge decision in the US and applying to the losses arising in Christchurch following the earthquake. See http://www.allanmanning.com/?p=14 […]

  5. Have you ever thought about publishing an e-book or guest authoring on other websites?
    I have a blog centered on the same subjects you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information.
    I know my visitors would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel
    free to send me an e mail.

  6. Allan says:

    Hello, I am not sure where you are based. I and most of my readers are based in Australia, New Zealand and the US. If you think that what I say would be of interest to your readers, let me know based on what you have seen.

    Allan

  7. Sid H. says:

    I like your site and posts. They are very well writted. Well done.

  8. Al Ragans says:

    Your mode of describing everything in this post is genuinely good, everybody can effortlessly be familiar with it, Thanks a lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*