Forum

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 | 06 Jun 2014, 08:33 AM Agree 0
An underwriting agency has backed up concerns that unreliable insurers may leave clients in the lurch and says some of its returning customers have been burnt by such volatility.
  • John | 06 Jun 2014, 10:18 AM Agree 0
    Mr Rye raises an interesting point with regard to automation, but I'm not sure how it sits with the fact that LAUW have an online ML rater.

    As a broker, I'd prefer a good underwriter to review a submission and provide terms & premium based on the risk. However, there are currently multiple insurers with whom we deal, whose underwriters are terrified of risk and apply onerous exclusions to anything they manually review.

    Whilst many brokers may accept these terms, ultimately I see this as more likely to lead to claims being denied than any disclosure issues.

    The result is that it becomes preferrable to use a web rater, if the activities of an insured are standard for their occupation and that occupation is described on the schedule and not excluded in the wording, I see no disclosure issue arising from the business activities.

    I'd also prefer that insureds complete a full proposal form but this isn't a viable commercial reality, particuarly for smaller risks, nor will it be in the forseeable future with further digitalisation. We're seriously struggling to get new clients to do this and thus rightly or wrongly relying on pre-populated proposal forms.
  • John | 06 Jun 2014, 11:15 AM Agree 0
    As a broker, I'd prefer a good underwriter to review a submission and provide terms & premium based on the risk. However, there are currently multiple insurers with whom we deal, whose underwriters are terrified of risk and apply onerous exclusions to anything they manually review.

    The result is that it becomes preferrable to use a web rater, if the activities of an insured are standard for their occupation and that occupation is described on the schedule and not excluded in the wording, I see no disclosure issue arising from the business activities.

    I'd also prefer that insureds complete a full proposal form but this isn't a viable commercial reality, particuarly for smaller risks, nor will it be in the forseeable future with further digitalisation. We're seriously struggling to get new clients to do this and thus rightly or wrongly relying on pre-populated proposal forms.
Post a reply