orangeblock

Take care with the advice you give regarding valuations

18 November 2008 | Non-life | General | Gareth Stokes

A recent Moonstone Monitor presented some interesting views on a recent FAIS Ombud decision that brokers assist their “clients in determining a realistic valuation of their insured goods.” This is another in a list of determinations that highlight shortcomings in the advice aspect of selling financial services products. To quote from the act, and adviser is expected to “Act honestly and fairly… in the interests of clients and the integrity of the financial services industry.”

Causing confusion

Responding to Moonstone’s initial article on the FAIS Ombud rulings, a broker in the Free State expressed confusion over the determination. In her experience the value of a total loss is based on the fair market value of the vehicle regardless of how much the vehicle was insured for. This value is determined in line with the Auto Dealer list for the month in question. Moonstone’s reader adds that insurance is not a tool for enrichment – and that items should only be insured for what they’re worth. If the determination holds, then there would be nothing to prevent clients from similar attempts to benefit from incorrect valuations of household contents and motor vehicles.

The FAIS Ombud is quite familiar with the total loss concept. A quick look at yesterday’s FAnews Online newsletter confirms this. When awarding damages against the broker in the Mannie case the FAIS Ombud based his settlement on the fair market value of R166 500 even though the vehicle was insured for R250 000. There was no comment in this determination about the excessive insured value on the vehicle...

A broker is not a valuator

In another response to the FAIS Ombud determination, a Moonstone reader comments that insurance brokers are not in the business of valuing assets. According to him valuations provided by brokers can, at best, be viewed as guidelines or estimates. Even the undisputed champion of motor vehicle valuations (the Mead’s Auto Guide) cannot be accepted as gospel truth. You should let your clients know that the values published in this guide are not always 100% accurate due to variations for kilometres travelled and vehicle condition. One of the suggestions were to recommend that the client values his vehicle at an independent motor dealer.

And here’s an interesting point. If we assume that insurers were to use the ‘three quote’ technique to value vehicles: What happens when the insured pays premiums on the Mead Auto Guide valuation, only to learn at the time of total loss that the insurance company’s market valuation is significantly lower? This scenario is quite plausible in today’s tough economic conditions. If you used an average price from three motor dealers, for example, the likelihood of this value being lower than the retail (and even trade) value in the guide is very high. This means the insured has been overpaying premiums on the good faith assumption that the Auto Guide valuation is correct.

The law is a living thing...

It’s said that the law is a living thing. In this regard the FAIS Act is no different. Each FAIS Ombud determination clarifies how sections of the legislation will be applied. If you pay close attention to the letter of the law in the first place you probably don’t have too much to worry about. But it makes sense to keep an eye on the cases that the FAIS Ombud presides over.

It is essential that you equip the client with the tools to make use of specialised and / or professional valuation services. You should be advising the client of the dangers of underinsurance or over insurance as a matter of course – assisting with fair value assessments is probably a good way to make sure your client takes adequate cover. As always, remember to document your advice – and have your client sign to prove that the advice was presented to them.

Editor’s thoughts:
The correct valuation of household goods and motor vehicles is essential in determining the correct premium level at a short-term insurance policy inception. It’s also a good idea to recalculate this value on an annual basis – and advise your client to update his insurance policy whenever he purchases a new household appliance or item. Add your comments below, or send them to [email protected]

Comments

Added by CB, 25 Nov 2008
At this rate a lot of insurance brokers could be out of the industry within the next 5 years. Who will do the marketing and administration of short term insurance then? The direct companies such as Outsure, Dial Direct and Miway? It looks like they are busy taking over the industry because the honest, independent brokers are being forced out of the industry by the legislation. The legislation in Britain - on which the RSA FAIS Act was based - has been revised twice in the last 6 years and now comprises only about 40% to 50% of the original legislation on which ours is based, and yet our government is simply adding continously to our FAIS Act. The government does not seem to want independant brokers in RSA any longer. Although I have had no cases referred to the ombudsman as yet, I am strongly considering leaving the industry - after 27 years. It's just not worth the risks any longer. We as brokers seem to be on the losing end most of the time lately.
Report Abuse
Added by PV, 19 Nov 2008
Even though my knowledge of short term insurance is limited, I would assume the basis for any service rendered is that insurers would need to act with fairness in the interests of their clients. In all instances the insurers act on the requested valuations provided by the insured, whether its a valuation certificate or personal request. However insurers have sufficient information at their disposal to determine the value of certain items, such as vehicles, etc., yet they continue to rake exesive premiums fully knowing that they would only honour a portion thereof in the even of a claim. eg. If I had to insure a 2005 Tazz 1.3 at R100 000, all insurers would charge me a premium based on the R100 000, fully aware that they would never honour such a claim. Such approaches should not be allowed. Insurers should actually have to identify the value they are willing to insure vehicles and match the premiums as the value changes to ensure the insured receives full cover at all times.
Report Abuse
Added by Elna Rudman, 19 Nov 2008
Just a thought this morning that came to mind - I read on a daily basis about what Brokers must do and must not do in terms of FAIS - we all know about the obligations to our clients after all it is our bread and butter ....We over insure, we under insure, we give wrong advise and this and that. If our clients claim beyond the acceptable loss ratio of the companies, they cancell our brokerages because we become non-profitable to them............this has nothing to do with the broker, the clients claim, the broker gets punished, crime is out of hand and the government denies it, yet the broker gets blamed, the SAP do not give their cooperation... (I have a client that now submitted a claim for stolen goods found 6 months ago that the SAP refuse to give back to him, they need it as evidence apparently!) In the meantime he sits without possession of his own needed goods. Surely in the change of Insurer period the client is compromised during the interim period until other insurance options are found (compatible or maybe not compatible - maybe he/she had cover before for retail not market value of a vehicle, maybe car hire or top-up was included). if the broker have to struggle to get another insurer interested in taking the book the same cover may not apply at the next insurer. I expect that a case like this will come forward in the future but I truly feel that the FSB must give a serious look also into the situation of the Broker and not just always see us as the culprits or maybe even convicts of the industry, as Freddy Mercury says: "We are under pressure!" A good old tap on the back sometimes will go a long way especially when we fight for a client and we do succeed in payment of a claim even in cases where the client might have been behind in premiums or might have forgotten to change their risk address etc. etc.
Report Abuse
Added by Trish, 19 Nov 2008
How do we as the broker deal with the insurance companies who insist on insuring a vehicle for market or retail value, according to what their systems reflect, and do not reduce the premium each year as the value of the vehicle decreases, but actually increase the premium stating that the increase is due to the high cost of repairs. Try explaining that to a client who knows that his vehicle is losing value on a daily basis, but his premium goes up every year even if there is no claim during that year.
Report Abuse
Added by Madhu Patel, 18 Nov 2008
I think that brokers are not expert valuators. This is a specialised job in every industry. But what is important to the broker is that he records the fact that he has asked the client to provide a valid valuation. In the absence of the client providing this, his record of advice and mandate to the client should state that the client is responsible to provide current correct valuation. Of course, such statement and/or record of advice must be signed by the client.
Report Abuse
Added by Craig A, 18 Nov 2008
The problem with car values is that they can drop so quickly. How do you keep up with the falling prices. It's almost impossible. Getting the client to get his own valuation? Sure, that may happen if you believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. The aggrieved client will always look for a scapegoat and the easiest target is the broker.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

Take care with the advice you give regarding valuations
quick poll
Question

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

Answer