Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 16 May 2014, 08:46 AM Agree 0
A London-based consumer group is making waves by comparing insurance policy length to famous works of literature.
  • Scott | 16 May 2014, 09:50 AM Agree 0
    I think this is comparing apples to oranges in the worst way.

    If clients (& their brokers & their lawyers) treated insurance in the intended way then the insurers would not need to devote so many words to make it painfully clear exactly what will & exactly what will not be paid.

    However, people turn to insurance when they are desperate, so they try to find any possible loophole.

    In comparison, Orwell & many other authors feel 'less is more' when it comes to writing. They can afford to be vague & evocative, as they are not putting millions of dollars on the line by doing so.

    A more true comparison would be comparing an insurance policy to the legal acts & legislation.
  • John | 16 May 2014, 12:32 PM Agree 0
    Scott, your inference that the poor innocent insurers have to resort to pages and pages of exclusions to deal with the nasty grasping public is deplorable.

    A contract of upmost good faith ought to assume that an insured is making an honest representation and thus a claim is payable unless it is excluded therefore the insurer applies exclusions.

    However, I question how it is in good faith to apply exclusions so onerous and opaque that a normal person cannot reasonably interpret them.

    Whilst you may not like the way in which the survey is making its point, its point is closer to the truth of the matter than yours.
Post a reply