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 | 18 Feb 2015, 09:42 a.m. Agree 0
An independent report commissioned by a major player has made a bigger impact than expected – but the discussion it prompted is welcomed.
  • Leep | 18 Feb 2015, 10:37 a.m. Agree 0
    To me, it is a no brainer. The dual model "works" (ie people are EVENTUALLY paid out) but adds on extra complexity to manage a claim which ultimately results in extra-ordinarily slow recovery efforts. This is not even disputed - everyone agrees with this point.

    The next question seems a bit more debatable. Is there a justification to add that complexity or time delay? I have been in insurance for 5 years and I still consider that there is no justification.

    Of course, there are reasons why we have a dual approach - ie that is how it has always been done and there is too much politics and effort involved to change it.

  • hoover | 18 Feb 2015, 03:47 p.m. Agree 0
    report glosses over the poor immediate response by Vero, all very well to look at EQC issues but they should look closer at how they responded to this event.
    Will be interesting - will clients remember the initial response from insurers or their protracted final settlement
Post a reply