Showing posts from February 22, 2015

Assessing the ICNZ Revised Fair Insurance Code - Part 2

As we get further into the Revised Code the number of new issues raised slows down. Where the Revised Code deals with straight-out mechanical areas it works better and there is more clarity about what an insurer needs to conduct it’s business.  Despite this the position of the customer does not improve. Click on the link to read more nitty gritty.

Where to from here for ICNZ?

First, a minor correction regarding yesterday's post. The title, as originally posted, was almost what was intended, but not quite so my apologies for that. It was a bit of tongue in cheek and there was supposed to be a question mark at the end of the title – the omission was missed and I have now put one there. Even the Avonside blogger can get a little irritated and distracted when a lot of hard work is dismissed off-hand as "ill-considered" (oops, “ill-informed”.I was going to continue the analysis of the Revised Code this morning but that has been deferred until tomorrow. Instead it would be useful to briefly consider what ICNZ might do from here. Clearly they are unhappy with what has been termed the "ill-considered" (oops again, “ill-informed”) views expressed on this blog.  If that is the well-considered view of ICNZ then, presumably, nothing further will be said because they have put their case as succinctly as they can. Should, however, they do think t…

The Empire strikes back?

A journalist for Insurance Business Online yesterday wrote an article entitled New code slammed by earthquake blogger (here). It is a concise and well organised look at how the Revised Code is being analysed on this blog.Shortly after the article was published Tim Grafton, Chief Executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ), made the following comment:Surprised and disappointed that this ill-informed blogger, who did not submit on the new Code, was given such prominence and our views were not sought. The Code’s timeframes for responding to customers follow best practise …The rest of the comment is the standard PR stuff used in damage control situations. So, does this blogger resemble the description of being “ill-informed” and “did not submit”?The CanCERN newsletter for 20 February this year has an article on the Avonside Blog starting up again. Part of the text reads "Lawrence was the main man behind CanCERN’s submission to the Insurance Council on the revised code&qu…

Assessing the ICNZ Revised Fair Insurance Code - Part 1

Now we get to the nitty-gritty. If a paragraph by paragraph analysis isn't your thing come back next week, when we will be looking at the important stuff that was left out of the Revised Code. Click on the link to continue reading.

Comments on the ICNZ Revised Fair Insurance Code - Part 3

Some general issuesThese issues arise in various parts of the Revised Code. It is useful to keep them in mind while reading the Revised Code, to see how there is a continual stacking of the document with content that favours insurers and puts customers at risk.Keeping each other informed: As mentioned previously there is heavy emphasis on customers informing the insurer of existing and changing circumstances. This is understandable, as such information is key to the insurer knowing the status of the risk associated with the policy. Consequently, the Revised Code is laden with obligations on the customer to be forthcoming and fulsome about this. There is, however, no equivalent obligation placed upon insurers. Section 8 of the FAQ accompanying the Revised Code excuses insurers from making an effort to provide lists of required information or summaries of policy wordings. In the absence of suitable lists and explanations customers, who are not experienced with insurance contracts, are b…