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 | 02 Mar 2018, 03:30 a.m. Agree 0
Affidavit uncovers reason behind move against insurer
  • The Scribe | 02 Mar 2018, 09:30 a.m. Agree 0
    I read they paid claims, which is what an insurance company does. I wonder when paying claims and running the business became the domain of the RBNZ?
    Paying claims is running the business prudently, not paying claims would seriously undermine the NZ regulatory environment.

    If you look at their half year accounts:

    I see $156m of equity. Let's assume no profits made in 12 months and take out the $124m of adjustments they announced that would give them $32m of equity. Hardly sounds insolvent.

    How about some journalist asks to see the direction from the RBNZ. Was there a breach? Was the directive payments outside their normal business as usual or all payments? If all payments then why did the RBNZ not advise the market they were running the business prior to taking the action in court?
    What takes precedent for Directors? The company's act and the need to run the business or a directive from the RBNZ?

    How about someone asks some real questions?
  • Geoff. waterhouse | 11 Mar 2018, 06:19 p.m. Agree 0
    Here are a few questions that I feel should be answered
    1) Why did the RBNZ do nothing, after they were informed in 2013-2014, of the major insurance fraud committed in the USA (state of Georgia)from 2002-2005 by "Contractors Bonding Limited," as they were then known?
    2) Why did the FMA do nothing, after they were informed in September 2015 that CBL had told lies in their Product Disclosure Statement?
    If the RBNZ had taken action in 2014 and the FMA in 2015, the present situation would not have arisen. There are soooooooooooooo many other questions that could/should be asked, but i think these 2 will do for a start
Post a reply