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 | 03 Sep 2014, 09:40 AM Agree 0
A leading insurer has slammed the prospect of any government intervention that would force insurers to participate on aggregator sites, saying it would end up being a 'costly and invasive' form of market intervention.
  • Anthony | 03 Sep 2014, 10:42 AM Agree 0
    Allianz mentions market failure in its response to the FSI. The FSI should also turn its attention to recent market failure and red lining by the Australian Insurance Industry. The virtual withdrawal of insurance availability in North Queensland is now being replicated with small business owners in bushfire prone areas in NSW. While obviously more slective and thus more pernicious clients are now being denied any cover. Even Llloyd's coverholders are refusing to insre or placing ludicrous pricing and excess conditions. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Federal Minister for Small Business and NIBA. If the insurers find themselves subject to greater scrutiny and regulation it will be entirely on their own collective heads.
  • Retired Broker | 04 Sep 2014, 08:08 AM Agree 0
    Surely, if we are to make a move to an 'aggregator' type model which, after all, is merely the filtering and comparison of the products on offer from "all available" insurers, then this is the role that uncompromised brokers should naturally fit into.
    The problem we have seen with 'aggregators' and 'comparison' websites so far is that they are not representative of the total "available" insurance market and represent only those insurers who are prepared to pay a commission or a spotters fee.

    A motivated broker who is not constricted by an obligatory placement 'facility' should,with the right software and a motivated insurance market, be able to develop a viable comparison website.

Post a reply