Thread: Insurance concerns

(I'm been a bit crook with 'Rona, so if I've been silly, please excuse me).

with QBE, I've had many discussions with them. I've found them profoundly excellent. I've taken the time to describe what it is I do (did!) and them advised them that I have a highly detailed spreadsheet AND photos of everything that will be covered. They get VERY excited about that.

Since I moved here (a unit) I've a staggering value in tools "under the bed". The value, when added up, is insane. I told them this - these are my "toys" The rest are stored in two small storage sheds at Storage King.

They covered each very happily AND FULLY.

No arbitrary limits on individual claims. I was quite clear on this and they cover for the full value of the policy in case I'm "cleaned out".

I pay $74.89 for $145k contents, which includes one very specific collection (antiquities), plus tools in two different locations.

That $75 per month lets me sleep very comfortably.

No.

Among many other things, you don't have any sort of loss unless and until you've had an insurance claim rejected.

The reality of a rejected insurance claim will be more complicated, because rejection of claims for non-disclosure of relevant matters is often not really a simple thing. Read down in the articles and you'll see the guff that shows there's a bit more going on.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

IF they take issue with the business then you effectively have no cover any way. Best to be up front ASAP to know where you stand.

Now my contention is do we as consumers of insurance services have cause to take a class action against the insurance companies and underwriters for misleading us into believing we have had insurance cover when they ought reasonably to have known that a very significantly high proportion of small businesses in Australia are low turnover home based businesses???

Originally Posted by Cgcc

No.

Among many other things, you don't have any sort of loss unless and until you've had an insurance claim rejected.

The reality of a rejected insurance claim will be more complicated, because rejection of claims for non-disclosure of relevant matters is often not really a simple thing. Read down in the articles and you'll see the guff that shows there's a bit more going on.

The whole insurance claims process is fraught for the consumer. You should hear the horror stories of home owners making claims from TC's Yasi & Larry up our way. I'm sure its even worse for "flood" victims with the definitions of "flood", "rising waters" etc. After TC Yasi, I have friends who have had seven - yes seven - visits from loss adjusters assessing their claim, all with ludicrous ambit initial offers. The dumb thing was the then non-income producing (retired) ex-farm assets "no worries" but the house - what a nightmare.

For us having a MV policy application wrongfully declined "due to fraud" was a nightmare, distressing for my wife, very time consuming, and difficult to rectify, and incurred significant unrecoverable costs to us! Plus it also had the potential of significant implications for my employment. Not to mention destroying a wonderful gift to our daughter whilst we placed the new vehicle delivery on hold until we could secure a policy. Fortunately RACQ accepted our policy application then Suncorp without any explanation "reviewed and have accepted your application" some two weeks afterwards.

Correct no loss until the claim is rejected, however they have been taking premiums - therein is the loss. The consumer has paid a premium for cover that most likely was never going to be accepted! The are making out that the policy holder has been fraudulent by not disclosing key information for them to fully assess the risk. BS!

How many small businesses have assets, plant, tools, materials stored at their home, or vehicles, plant, machinery registered to their home address! Food trucks etc? Many employees (Telstra staff Tech's & Liney's plus many more) and "contractors" are coerced into storing materials and vehicles at their residence.

My contention is that they are a specialist insurer with very substantial actuarial resources who calculate risk. We are "naive" insurance consumers. They are accepting the premium, they know the extent of the home based business situation, they make no attempt to assess the additional risk (if any) & they have the policy of rejecting claims on very dubious grounds ..... plus they place the onus upon the consumer to inform them of "matters they should know in the ordinary course of their business." They are fully aware of the extent of home based businesses and exploit a loop hole to their advantage.

If an entity accepts an insurance premium knowing full well that a high percentage of claims "may" be rejected due to the "high proportion" of home based businesses then the onus should be upon them to make reasonable efforts to identify the full extent of the "risk." They must clearly inform the consumer of such a critical material policy exclusion, not rely upon wording in an 84 page PDS that a typical or even a well educated consumer struggles to interpret.

Consumers should really read their Product Disclosure Statements to understand what they are paying for - you may be very surprised by what and how your interpretation of "new for old" or "like for like" differs from the insurers definition in the PDS. Good luck with getting a "fair" cash payout for "antique tools" unless they are listed specifically.