orangeblock

Will the insurers ever take responsibility?

03 December 2008 | Compliance - Regulatory | FAIS Ombudsman | Gareth Stokes

Following our newsletter on the recent FAIS Ombud determination that brokers are responsible for reviewing the insured’s motor vehicle value on an annual basis we were inundated with responses from our readers. We encourage you to read the full newsletter on our website and add your views to the growing debate.

The consensus is that the annual review of values on a short-term policy is standard practice; but that doesn’t mean the ruling was welcomed by all. We’ll take a look at some of our reader responses and ask a few questions of the FAIS Ombud and the insurance industry as a whole. Colin says he was astounded by the ruling. “I cannot believe the Ombud laid the blame at the FSP without any mention of the insurer,” he says. “The insurers know damn well that Joe Soap has no idea what the market value of his car is at renewal. They conveniently leave thesum insured as isand accept apremium which they know is in excess of the risk they carry.” The insurer and not the broker pockets the additional cash paid by the insured. Another reader, Michelle feels that it’s “time the client starts taking some responsibility instead of blaming everyone else. Shortly we will be responsible for making sure their vehicles are serviced too!”

A suggestion that makes real sense

Apart from letting the insurer off the hook and waiving the insured’s accountability the FAIS Ombud has missed an opportunity to go for the heart of the problem. He can choose, as he has, to punish individual brokers and place the responsibility on the client to make a claim through an exhaustive complaints process – or he could have set in motion a process whereby the insurance company is required to make annual adjustments to all the vehicles on their books. That would ensure that all insured people receive fit and proper financial service – and remove unnecessary administrative chores from the short-term broker. It’s a proactive step that would eliminate the possibility of poor financial advice at broker level!

Colin thinks this solution would be easy to implement. “The insurers have expensive and complex information technology systems – so how is it that they cannot look up the market value of the car at renewal and print this and its reduced premium as part of the renewal invitation?” he asks. To force the broker to revalue each vehicle on his books on an annual basis “is a waste” of administrative resources – an absurd practice given that “the insurer could so easily make it part ofthe automated renewal process.” Another question the FAIS Ombud should consider is the long-term implications his rulings have in the direct insurance market. As the direct insurers gobble up more market share one has to ask who the FAIS Ombud will tackle when their clients run into difficulties with cover. Colin wonders whether the “direct insurers automatically adjust the sum insured every year?” It’s time that the FAIS Ombud holds the insurer up to the same scrutiny as the insurance broker – after all, they are financial services providers too.

Blame the broker

Brokers and other client-facing financial services professionals are becoming increasingly frustrated with the direction that regulatory determinations take. We thought the following ‘tongue-in-cheek’ comment from Mike perfectly illustrates the sentiment: “I hear there is talk of legislation being passed which will force brokers to hyphenate all multi-syllable words in their written correspondence to clients!”

“No matter what anybody says, we as brokers seem to carry all the risk in decision making,” says Eddie. He notes that the client is seldom (if ever) held liable for disputed short-term claims. “We insure all our client’s vehicles for the retail value (NOT market value) as this is what it would cost to replace the car. Market value has too many variables to be able to give an accurate value.” Eddie believes that “brokers need to stand together and dictate certain terms and conditions to ensure their survival…” Why not get together and demand that insurers automatically adjust policy insured values?

His view is echoed by Louise who says “a collective effort between the underwriter, broker and other industry players needs to increase, with a view to educating the consumer about obtaining the correct products and services as per the policy wording. This cannot only be left up to the broker.”

The current system works; but it could be so much better

Karen writes that although she automatically adjusts vehicle values on an annual basis, the determination works against the broker – once again laying all the responsibility at their door.” And she raises an interesting question. If the broker had adjusted the values without the clients knowledge and the value insured turned out to be inadequate “would the client then have laid a complaint saying the broker wasn’t authorised to [change the value]?”

Until the insurer steps up to the plate, brokers are going to have to go the extra mile. Elna suggests that you get written permission from your client to adjust values at the time the renewal notice is sent out. That way you cover all bases.

In the end it can also be simple – at the inception of the policy, ask the insured whether he would like his vehicles’ value automatically adjusted at the end of each year – if the answer is yes, the administration system is flagged with a ‘yes’ and this process becomes automatic. If the insured opts for a ‘no’ the value is left unchanged unless an instruction is received from the insured in writing, this will cover low mileage, additional accessories as well as condition of the vehicle which adds to the value of the vehicle.

We could open another can of worms and ask – does everyone agree that the basis of using the Mead & McGrouther book for values is the correct way to go?

Editor’s thoughts:
We’d love to find out what the insurance companies think of implementing an annual vehicle valuation on their systems. The suggestion makes a great deal of sense and would certainly free up a great deal of time for brokers. Would you support a call for the insurers to process a mandatory value adjustment to all motor vehicles on their books? Add your comments below or send them to [email protected].

Comments

Added by Jamieson, 05 Dec 2008
Sure it's fair and honest to decrease the insured value of the depreciating asset, and as it has been said by others, this can be handled automatically by the insurance company at the annual assessment. However, why shouldn't the appreciating assets of the client's (such as jewelery etc; etc:) be increased automatically at the same time? With both adjustments requiring the client's permission.
Report Abuse
Added by RT, 04 Dec 2008
The more work we pass on to Insurers to do the more we are cutting our own throats in terms of encouraging direct business. We have got to add value as Brokers if we are to survive and negotiating revised Motor Values for Clients at renewal is part of the personal service we can give and should give to our Clients. With regard to the judgement in question it does seem very strange that an Insured who can afford a R200000 Vehicle should not be conscious of the relationship of premium to value and the Broker should surely not have to take take all reponsibilty in this instance. The judgement should surely have expected a "reasonable man" to take some responsiblity for his own insurance value. Let us not think of the Ombudsman as faultless
Report Abuse
Added by WM, 04 Dec 2008
VEHICLE INSURED VALUES I have on numerous occasions asked my Brokers why I am insuring my vehicle for a value which is not going to be paid out to me? My Scenario 2004 Audi A4 1.8T (140kw) Insured value R175 000 Retail Value R140 000 Trade In Value R128 000 So why am I insuring it for R175 000 ? If it gets written off tomorrow are they paying me out my Insured Value ?? Your comments would be appreciated.
Report Abuse
Added by FN, 04 Dec 2008
I agree with Elna that the brokers must get client approval to change valuations every year but with valuations supplied by the insurers like you suggested from their system. Some of the insurers must also start paying back excesses that clients pay and they recover but not pay back to their clients. I must admit that Outsurance was the only insurer that I have been with over the last 40 years that came back to me, I wonder hou many people know that they are entitled to their excess if they are not at fault.(I did not know)
Report Abuse
Added by PV, 04 Dec 2008
Daar word gedurig wysigings teen ons gedoen sonder dat ons ook geraadpleeg word.Die saak oor die waarde van die motor is regtig 'n lang-doring turksvy. Wanneer 'n motor verseker word dan soek die mpye net die volledige beskrywing van die voertuig . Word die motor afgeskryf dan tel die kilometerss die grootste faktor om die waarde te betaal. Wat nou! Hoe moet die makelaar die waarde bepaal.Sk*kel jy die mpy of 'n verkoopsman van motors om die waarde vas te stel, vra hulle nie hoeveel kilometers die motor al afgele het. Watter ekstras het die klient aan sy motor aangebring. Is dit nie die versekerde se plig om die mpy of sy makelaar in kennis te stel dat die motor nou meer werd is nie. As ek die situasie en uitspraak van die Ombud in bekyk sal die makelaar elke jaar as hy hersiening doen die verskerde se eiedom (alles ingesluit wat op die polis verseker is) moet gaan waardeer. Dan aanvaar hy die verantwoodelikheid dat die eiedomme reg verseker is. Ek sal graag wil weet watter verantwoordelikheid die versekerde het. Daar word nog net altyd verwys na die makelaar se verantwoordelikheid . 'n Ding wat my baie fassineer is: Enige persoon wat enige soort van k*ntrak,testament noem dit aangaan word met skerp oe deurgeslees en as hy dit nie verstaan nie word 'n prokureur geraadpleeg en daar word seker gemaak dat hy die inhoud verstaan. Kom dit by versekering dan is dit die makelaar se plig om die inhoud aan klient te verduidelik. GEDURIG WORD GESE "DIE MAKELAAR HET MY NIE GESE NIE " MAAR DIT STAAN IN DIE KONTRAK!!!! Dan kan hy ewe skielik nie lees nie. Ek dibk die Ombud moet 'n slag na dioer klaer se geleerdheid kyk, sy lees vermoe toets voor hy teen die makelaar uitspraak gee. Kyk maar of hierdie siening iets werd, ndien nie, gooi weg.
Report Abuse
Added by pw, 04 Dec 2008
How can Insurers possibly automatically revalue vehicles, not having direct communication with clients with regard to mileage, extras on vehicle etc. My car has R60 000 worth of extras, which would not automatically be added by a "sophisticated" insurer system. I think Broker's are copping out of personal service, where at least once a year they reveiw and discuss renewals with their clients, otherwise why do clients and insurers need us??
Report Abuse
Added by NT, 04 Dec 2008
Interesting interchanges taking place in this regard , a bit like the cancellation penalties issue in connection with RA's that raged a while ago , with everybody passing the buck on to someone else . I discovered about 6 weeks ago that my vehicle value had been overstated for the last few years . Broker apologised for the oversight and effected an adjustment to premium going back to inception of cover with current insurer , he had moved underwriter last year . Would it be fair/reasonable for me to ask him to go back to the previous insurer to obtain a premium refund for me ? Your view pls .
Report Abuse
Added by JB, 04 Dec 2008
I wonder whether my personal experience will be of any assistance. M&F used to have a lovely facility on their website that allowed you to access market values of motor vehicle [I suspect it was slightly inflated-but that is fine-rather safe than sorry]. I used to adjust my values down each year based on this facility until when faced with a particular claim; there was a query about under-insurance. Fortunately I had ‘cut & pasted’ the valuation from the website and they promptly settled. As an aside, I must confess to have always been partial to M&F, as I have found them to be one of the most reputable ST companies [in my limited experience]. What has disappointed me is that some years ago M&F removed this facility from their website. In short, I suspect that the ST industry decided not to facilitate lowering sum assureds. Unless the broker goes to the expense of buying the motor vehicle valuation books, there is no facility for him/her to obtain valuations from the ST companies. What I see is a clinical move to: • Pass both responsibility and accountability to the intermediary; • Encourage over insurance and hence higher ‘free’ premium [i.e. premium that is received but carries no liability]; and • Not facilitate the intermediary in this task of obtaining lower values correctly [again I must ask, is this mere corporate oversight, or cynical planning] I hope my cynicism is unfounded
Report Abuse
Added by JB, 04 Dec 2008
I am astounded by the reaction thus far , from " experts of industry ". 1. The determination was not about who must take responsibility for the values when , BUT the lack of documents making the client aware of OVERINSURANCE , thus placing him ( the client ) in a position to take responsibility for the value. Client only received documentation warning about UNDERINSURANCE. ( THIS WAS THE CRUX OF THE DETERMINATION - apart from the renewal time issue ). 2. Apart from above , Insurers and brokers cannot advise client on values at all ( previously determined court case in the 90,s if not mistaken ) purely because none of the two are valuators. 3. Apart from 2 , insurers would not be able to adjust values ( even with techno at hand ) BECAUSE the normal values do not account for extras on vehicles , type of cover and more importantly , condition of the specific insured vehicle. Thus , forget about it. 4. Broker must see to correctly adding of a vehicle at the beginning ( specialy when bought on credit ) AND extras on vehicle.From there , the broker role is one of facilitating the value issue annualy with renewal or whatever interval is used. The client remain responsible and should be communicated clearly. My solution to this - any correspondence between insurer and /or broker to client , must include the word overinsurance somewhere.That is all.
Report Abuse
Added by PD, 04 Dec 2008
It was a while back that a college of mine mentioned starting a broker union as we do not get fair representation for any of the bodies out there. Perhaps suggest it in your next news letter and see if you get a positive result. Brokers need somebody to represent then against FSB, Clients, insurance company. Can you imagine if brokers could go on strike??
Report Abuse
Added by MK, 04 Dec 2008
Passing the buck to the insurer is not going to solve this issue. As more and more brokers work under delegated authorities from insurers the problem simply comes back to us (the broker). The issue of motor values is only a microcosm of the deeply flawed FAIS legislation which has already departed from its lofty, first world goals and has become a punitive system, seemingly wielded by one man, to protect the minority of clients from the consequences of their own apathy and disinterest in a product they have purchased. Obviously the principle of caveat emptor has gone out the door. I can never help but wonder whether the Ombudsman (according to my dictionaries there is no such word as "Ombud") is hellbent on sending a barrage of neo-liberal rulings in an attempt to deflect attention from the decay in this country's basic law and order enforcement. You can rape, murder and rob, but adjust a vehicle value at your peril. Am I imagining it, or do most of the rulings seem to involve smaller or medium sized brokers? Are we generally incompetent or just an easy target or are our corporate brethren, with their massive client bases, so squeaky clean and efficient as to avoid any kind of dispute with their clients. I recall a rumour several years ago which said something along the lines that FAIS had been implemented with the full blessing and support of the large institutions as it would help "clear up the market and get rid of the rats and mice". Probably just scurrilous gossip.
Report Abuse
Added by RS, 04 Dec 2008
Just a comment from a compliance perspective regarding the Ombud's ruling against the broker regarding the depreciated value of a vehicle. Whilst Mr. Pillai's determination seems harsh it is of course quite correct. The Broker as the insured's advisor is regarded as the expert in matters insurance. (S)he has therefore also to advise on under and over insurance. With the risk of getting all brokers up in arms, I do feel that too many brokers still focus on over-insurance because of averaging and problems related thereto at claim stage but many neglect to mention the opposite' i.e. devaluation in the value of an asset. The whole question of value determination is of course a thorn in the side of any broker. Brokers are not valuators and should shy away from doing so for reasons known to us all. Having said all this there is a way that the broker could have averted the determination against it and I suggest they do so for the future. • The Ombud is quite correct that in terms of the FAIS Act the advisor must advise the clients on insuring any item correctly, including the insured value. • The Act does not stipulate however that the broker has to determine such value! • The Ombud has stated on many occasions that he assumes that there exists a "service level agreement" between advisor and client. A prominent compliance practioner like Anton Swanepoel has on many occasions stated that such an agreement must be in writing as part of an advisor's compliance arrangements. WHY? • If the broker in this case were in a position to show that he advised the client about the importance of values and then furthermore made it a condition in the service agreement that the insured is obliged to determine the value of the insured goods by appropriate means, like quotes, valuation certificates and so on, Mr Pillai's determination would probably have been quite different, don't you think?
Report Abuse
Added by DS, 04 Dec 2008
I have to say that I think that the Ombad has it right on this one in that someone has to advise the insured of the need to correct the value of the vehicles. Brokers are (or certainly should be) aware that many – most – insurers will not adjust the insured values unless instructed to do so, and so they – the broker - has a duty, even if it is an onerous one, to advise clients of the current book value. To avoid doing this is, I suggest, a dereliction of duty. If the administration (and expense – which is considerable – of doing this is too great then one cannot in all fairness hold oneself out to be a professional insurance broker. It may very well be that insurers should shoulder this administrative burden but we all know that they don’t and it therefore behoves us to take on the responsibility to see that client’s vehicles are correctly insured. Or as close to the correct value as is reasonable. Sure; it means that one has to subscribe to the correct publications so that one does know what the correct values are at renewal. And sure, it takes time to check all the values and again it takes time – as well as costing a bomb if one is using the services of the Post Office – to notify clients of the correct values. And there is the question of what to do if the insured does not respond to your request for confirmation that the sums insured may be reduced (assessors are notorious for purring the boot in for the broker if the sum insured is less than the correct value at the time of a total loss) – and on and on and on. But any broker worth his/her salt will have worked out solutions to these many issues so that there is a cogent, adequate defence when confronted with an adverse ruling by the Ombad. So sorry guys, stop whinging and take heed – if you are a broker then accept that you are responsible for seeing that your insured is correctly insured.
Report Abuse
Added by GH, 04 Dec 2008
It seems to me that short-term insurance companies could very easily adjust the book values of the vehicles on their books. Possibly they are happy with the status quo whereby clients overpay for the value of the vehicles as this means more coming into the coffers and if there is a claim they only pay out based on the book value. I believe morally each insurer should adjust values and therefore, premiums downwards on an annual basis, but unless they all agree to do so, no one of them will unilaterally take this step. Similar in a way to the confiscatory penalties on early termination of RA and endowment policies. It took the authorities to sort out that practice. It is indeed a sorry state of affairs when companies don’t do what they surely must know to be right, rather waiting for it to be made compulsory by law. With this type of morality, some may say that it is no wonder the world finances are in the mess that they currently find themselves in. And who are the losers in this whole affair? – the man and woman in the street as usual.
Report Abuse
Added by MM, 04 Dec 2008
I comment as follows - Revaluing vehicles annually has been done for donkeys years by any good broker and its a lousy job !!. Renasa Insurance Company on their Oscar system have a provision for values to be adjusted - which is great but is done throughout the year. I feel annual revision is sufficient. Also at least 50% of vehicles insured have additional extras fitted on purchase that have to be included in the sum insured - so there will still be a far amount of admin work to do - no easy way out here! But I feel the Broker is being targeted by the Ombud - when claims have been repudiated on not being roadworthly, the client blames us too ! The Insured has to take responsibility on his short term insurance issues.
Report Abuse
Added by QM, 04 Dec 2008
From a brokers view We do adjust vehicle values with renewal. Maybe it is better not to do so with renewal but rather mention in your renewal cover letter to the client that the value of the vehicle has decreased to X amount and ask permission to do so, explaining the results of not adjusting the value. If the client does not respond, the value of the vehicle stays as is and the broker can not be held liable. If the insurer adjusts the value incorrectly and the broker does not pick the error up with renewal - who is held responsible? The broker of caurse!! It feels as if legislation is hanging the broker by the neck from every angle. And another thing Some of the admin staff or staff at the call centres are not familiarised with the replacement clause on vehicles (personal lines policis) what happens if the value of a vehicle is adjusted that is still subjected to replacement clause and the vehicle is written off before the renewal documents is recieved by the broker. I agree with many other FSP's that the client has a responsibility to check that the values of the items that he insures is correct and adequate. What happens to items for example 1. that are to old 2. motor bikes 3. heavy duty machinery 90% of the time it is not possible for the insurer or the broker to determine the value of the items. Does the responsibility to provide a value not lay with the insured???
Report Abuse
Added by RP, 04 Dec 2008
The response to the Ombud’s ruling was overwhelming to say the least!! May I also do my bit. The very essence of FAIS is for an intermediary to GIVE advice, not to force his client into any decisions. The intermediary’s responsibility, therefore, lies in informing his client as to new retail values (motor) and replacement values (non-motor). It is not his duty to ACT without his client’s confirmation. Yes we do increase values (non-motor) by some margin but this is NOT advice being given, it is acting as a preliminary measure – the onus is still on the client to decide on this measure. Let’s consider the matter at hand. If the intermediary is to reduce motor values to retail values, (provided he indicates what is meant by retail values) what would the scenario be if the vehicle becomes under insured by virtue of extras added to the vehicle? The intermediary would then have to fork out a lot more than just a refund of some premiums!!!! The intermediary therefore, has two choices: He can reduce the value (this is an act, not advice) – AND POINT OUT THE MATTER OF EXTRAS, or he could leave the insured value – AND POINT OUT THE OBVER INSURANCE ASPECT (this would be advice). In both cases he will be ACTING and also GIVING advice. Provided the provisos are pointed out to his client, my view is that the intermediary in question acted in accordance with the mandate given to him by his client. Whilst I agree that FAIS has come as a refreshment in our industry, I believe that in some cases, as with this one, the Ombud is inclined to take matters too far. I do NOT agree with this ruling, after all, is it expected from the client to just sit back and blame EVERYTHING on the intermediary, is there NO responsibility on the client as well, having been given advice on which he is to act? What happens if he misuses the vehicle and when it comes to a claim DURING the period of insure, the assessor finds that the vehicle is of very much less value? Will the Ombud also find that the intermediary should have informed his client of thei fact? It all comes down to what Common Law requires from the “reasonable” man in the street, some information is known knowledge whilst other information has to be questioned. Many regards and keep up the good work.
Report Abuse
Added by IP, 04 Dec 2008
I invite you or the Ombud even with copy of registration documents to find the exact model of vehicles as per the Insurers so called value tables. On numerous occasions I attempted to find updated values on the value systems available but to no avail. The next best thing is to call a dealer in the specific make of vehicle. This is a bit like playing roulette as you must put your trust in a person you have never met to provide a value and take the responsibility that the value is indeed correct. Mercedes is a prime example the same year can be a new shape or an old shape and the value would be may thousands of rands apart. I am only a broker not a car expert so what will happen if I provide a value which at time of claim is incorrect. So dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.
Report Abuse
Added by RL, 04 Dec 2008
The point is that the onus for adequately insuring his motor vehicle rests with the insured. To discharge that onus, it must be explained to him how the policy operates, and what he must take into consideration in arriving at an insured value. The broker may offer to assist him – by accessing Mead & McGrouther for example – and this is where the problems start. You MUST tell him that you are only doing it as assistance, and that the onus still rests with him to satisfy him that the value so produced by the broker is fair & reasonable. The alternative, which I am favouring more and more as I realize that the broker can never protect himself entirely from unscrupulous clients (and the Ombud) is not to help him, and to merely tell him that the policy is one of indemnity and the policy will only pay out the reasonable market value (wording previously known as ‘Multimark’) at the time of a loss. He must therefore ensure that he adjusts his value from time to time, otherwise he will be paying more than he should. Finished. Up to him. Although insurers generally define ‘reasonable market value’ as the Retail price as per Mead & McGrouther, (adjusted for extras, accessories and spare parts, mileage and condition of the vehicle) and settle claims on this basis, if you can show that the market value of your particular vehicle is less, then insure it for less. If more, insure it for more. Insurers cannot insist on paying in accordance with M & Mc. If you can show (you’ve tried to sell it/trade it in) that it’s reasonable market value is different than M & Mc. then they must pay on this basis. Of course there are wordings that may specify that they will pay Retail, or whatever, but where a policy undertakes to pay the reasonable market value, then it should pay just that (irrespective of Mead & McGrouther).
Report Abuse
Added by EB, 04 Dec 2008
This is not old news. Brokers have since inception of the Ombudsman been responsible for everything. It seems to be the short way out to solve all the problems. The insurance companies have all the information at their disposal to do the adjustments on a yearly basis. If the broker is responsible, the Ombudsman will have to prescribe to the broker which price index he is supposed to subscribe to. I think we should all become car salesmen! The automatic adjustment by the insurance companies is long overdue and it should not be the responsibility of the broker. The broker is not a valuator.
Report Abuse
Added by Pet, 04 Dec 2008
Brokers should check retail values and then check with client as most have extras on car, that is part of our service.
Report Abuse
Added by JM , 04 Dec 2008
I am disgusted by the insurers and their miserable attitude and disrespect for what we do. they are a bunch of old fools , They do not understand. without us there is no industry. (are they to stupid to realise this) ? in the meantime we get raped by everybody on a daily basis including the client and the Ombud, who is always of the opinion that the broker is a thief in sheep clothing we must always do more for less, I am GATVOL.........and I think many more. That’s why nobody wants to start in the industry. that’s why the average age of a broker is about 55. and that is why all of us should have a side business to fall back on. the industry is just getting to stupid.
Report Abuse
Added by BBBB, 04 Dec 2008
The valuation of vehicles purchased under lease/hire purchase poses a very real problem in the valuation of m vehicles. Should say a broker in good faith revalue a vehicle on behalf of a client in order to ensure that he is not paying unnecessary premium on the current value of the vehicle but the outstanding amount owing to the finance house is more than the actual value of the vehicle then the broker will again be blamed and will be held accountable for any claim. Clients often choose their own valuation in order to save on premium. At the end of the day the onus should still be on the client who must inform the insurer on a regular basis what the value of his vehicle should be. Even in consultation with a broker, pertinent questions should be asked as to what was outstanding on the vehicle is as well. Brokers cannot simply change the value on behalf of customers unless specifically asked to do so. Another aspect which is alarming is that there are many peoples who simply cancel their insurance via stop payment after they have obtained finance. Brokers have no control over this Finance houses should ensure that premiums on insurance taken out for vehicles financed are in place at all time. This could be done by a simple request to the insurer on a monthly basis. Legal action should be taken if a client simply cancels a policy in order not to have to pay the premium. The insurer on the other hand must be willing to compensate clients if they can prove to them that they have been unfairly over charged based due to an incorrect valuation. Bearing in mind that vehicles depreciate on a monthly basis.
Report Abuse
Added by AC, 04 Dec 2008
There are other aspects to this debacle: With due respect, the FAIS Ombudsman has erred on this issue. 1. Often when vehicles values are reviewed, the new increased rates kick in, resulting in little or no savings for the client, sometimes an increased premium. 2. Vehicle values change monthly based on market conditions; right now values are suspect due to poor sales. What happens if we change values and a few months later the prices pickup, who is now responsible for the difference in the event of a 'write-off' claim? 3. Often I find clients are worse off when re-calculating values, I know of one underwriting manager who discreetly increases his 'admin fees' to keep the premiums 'market related.' Whether the insurance company is aware of it or not, I am not too sure. 4. And finally, clients fit in 'Extras' to his vehicle, often not fully disclosed by the client, who will be responsible for ensuring all additional items are taken care off? This is more problematic in the case of second hand vehicles. Finally, the time has come to look more closely at the insurance companies and their underwriting managers, they contribute to the problem!
Report Abuse
Added by DP, 04 Dec 2008
When will clients ever take responsibility? They are quick to complain at time of loss whether it be for under or over insurance. The problems when the insurers like Out and Dial etc do not put a value but just say Retail or Market so the trusting public do not even know what sum insured they are paying premiums on, and the premiums are not reduced on a monthly basis either even though the value is. They also are mostly unaware that low mileage etc can increase the payout, conversely poor condition and high mileage can negatively impact and you can bet that these insurers are quick to bring the latter to the attention of the poor saps. It would be for this reason the a prudent underwriter does not automatically adjust values and it is left to the broker, who does this and then covers themselves by telling the client that should there be low mileage etc the onus is on them to take the car for a valuation. My mother (77) has had a car for 6 years – it has 17000 k’s on the clock and has been to PE twice! I have had a car for 1 year and have put 30000k’s on the clock – 1 trip to PE, her retail value now increase but how do you prove it at time of theft as we are a cash only family?
Report Abuse
Added by AA, 04 Dec 2008
Brokers get paid to look after their clients insurance affairs & adjusting vehicle values is one of those tasks. How can the individual insurers Take high or low milages of a vehicle & extensive lists of extras into account when arriving at reasonable retail or market values. The issue Here is brokers not doing their job. From our experience clients rarely read renewal letters as they expect the broker to have sorted Any possible problems prior to renewal letters being sent out. The broker should be phoning the client prior to the annual renewal date to Ascertain if there are any changes to be made. The Brokers job is to act as an INTERMEDIARY between the client & the insurance Company, Unfortunately too many brokers act like the insurance company itself hence the very concept of being an intermediary is lost & this gives the broking Community a bad reputation..
Report Abuse
Added by RP, 04 Dec 2008
Gareth, i support the suggestion that insurers do a mandatory value adjustment yearly to all motor vehicles. The onus then lies with the Broker at renewal stage of the policy, to add any new extras to the retail value of the vehicle (after ajustment by the insurer) if applicable.
Report Abuse
Added by KM, 04 Dec 2008
As I work as a broker and am often asked to quote on direct insurance policies I have noticed how the direct insurers deal with vehicle values There is no monetary value for a vehicle detailed on the policy document. The vehicle is either insured for market or retail value (retail value being the higher). The premium is quoted on one of the two and charged accordingly. In year two it continues to be the same premium (barring any adjustments for claims or rates) and continues to year three and onwards. There is no adjustment of premium, market or retail continues to be the reflected value The problem of reducing premiums along with the value of the car is thus avoided Maybe all insurers should do the same. Automatic reduction of vehicle values can also be problematic, if reviewed by broker or insurer the client must agree to the value in writing before any changes can be done. It is certainly time that clients assumed some responsibility for themselves. A broker can be of service to the client and advise them but we cannot start thinking for them as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Abuse
Added by DVS, 04 Dec 2008
Determining the value of vehicles is a dangerous minefield where no wise broker would like to enter. There are numerous recorded cases where the courts have rejected the values determined via the Mead & Mcgrouther guidelines. The "value" of any item is what such an item would fetch in the market place and anyone who has ever tried to sell a second hand vehicle will testify that there is a canyon separating reality from the Mead & McGrouther suggested price. In the current economic crisis this becomes a very real problem. The bottom has fallen out of the motor trade and prices generally have plummeted. Second hand cars are sold at up to 20% lower than the suggested retail price. Trade ins are down by up to 60% of the suggested trade ins by Mead & McGrouther. So how does one determine the "value" of a vehicle today? There is also nothing in any insurance policy that binds Companies to the Mead & McGrouther values and it is only a matter of time before some company will argue a settlement on reduced values. I am advising clients to ensure that they insure their vehicles at "market" values. This I do in writing. To determine that value is, however, the responsibility of the client. I am not a mechanical expert to determine the condition of the vehicle, nor am I an expert on selling vehicles. I will advise clients on ways that they may obtain values in much the same way as we do for determining the values of their house contents, but I will not value their vehicles for them. I am satisfied that the advice I give is proper and I will defend this point of view even if it means going to court.
Report Abuse
Added by TG, 04 Dec 2008
A certain Insurer has made an underwriting profit every year for longer than 10 years running with a 'motor book' having a similar percentage to their GPI as other Insurers. Wondered why or how? They never disclose an actual monetary value as a Sum Insured but rather the words Trade Value or Retail Value. At inception of the policy, they know what the present day Trade or Retail value is and rate the risk based on this value and other material underwriting criteria. They advertise as well as sell a nominal premium increase, say 7% at renewal of the policy. All looks acceptable to the consumer, however nobody questions the vehicle(s) value as no value is stipulated. With the depreciation of the vehicle value during the year, this nominal increase could in reality be closer to 15% or 20% and even larger in the years to come based on the reduced vehicle value and selling the same nominal 7% premium increase. Is this practice accepatble to the Ombud? Great for both Insurer and Broker as no blame can be laid at the door of either party, however can this practice be considered consumer friendly?
Report Abuse
Added by Anne, 04 Dec 2008
We (fsp)as a service to our clients each year attach to the renewal a printed copy of the Mead and McGrouther vehicle listings (cost of this computer programme is minimal) In addition we point out that they must take their mileage / condition and any extras into account and advise us what value they wish to place on the vehicle. After all, how can Insurers and brokers alike reduce clients vehicle values without the latter criteria. We are not vehicle valuators!! Even a car salesman wont value a vehicle over the phone - they have to see it and drive it. If we as the broker can supply the M +McG values to the client and then the "ball is in their court" to revert with a value of their choice. Our compliance officers tell us that we would not be carrying out our function as fsp if we didnt phone each client at renewal??
Report Abuse
Added by Debbie, 04 Dec 2008
I have a problem with Short Term Brokers who keep moaning about the work they have to do and why they are held accountable and not the insurance companies. My question is - what does a broker get commission for? To ensure that the client is properly insured and deliver a service. If you don't review your clients portfolio in detail with him every year, then you should be held accountable for your negligence, or you shouldn't be paid commission. The broker is the person with the knowledge and expertise and just sending a schedule is not acceptable. You need to meet your client face to face, or telephonically once a year or more.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Will the insurers ever take responsibility?
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer