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 | 25 Feb 2015, 09:20 a.m. Agree 0
The newly revised Fair Insurance Code has received a detailed mauling on a Canterbury blog page, which has been resurrected to review it.
  • Tim Grafton CE ICNZ | 25 Feb 2015, 11:27 a.m. Agree 0
    Surprised and disappointed that this ill-informed blogger, who did not submit on the new Code, was given such prominence and our views were not sought. The Code’s timeframes for responding to customers follow best practise offshore. Our guidelines to members on the ‘reasonable’ response to non-disclosure cite UK law in this area and reasonableness will be determined by the independent Dispute Resolution Schemes. We are introducing sanctions for non-compliance, public reporting of non-compliance and will have a majority of independent experts on the Code Compliance Committee.

  • Lawrence Roberts | 25 Feb 2015, 09:34 p.m. Agree 0
    Hi Tim. If you read CanCERN's newsletter of 20 February you will see an item on the Avonside Blog along with the comment "Lawrence was the main man behind CanCERN’s submission to the Insurance Council on the revised code." Leanne Curtis and I met with you for over an hour when you came down to Christchurch to hear submissions to the Review. You and I even exchanged one or two e-mails about the CanCERN submission subsequent to the meeting. So the comments about being ill-informed and a non-participant are not correct. Regards.
  • Jeff Barnfield | 26 Feb 2015, 10:04 p.m. Agree 0
    The new Insurance code should have been drawn up by a totally independant group being experts in the insurance industry and then made legally binding by the NZ Government, with no loop holes allowed. As the NZ Insurance Council has drawn the new code up itself then of course it will favour the insurers far more than the insured.
  • Paul King | 27 Feb 2015, 09:05 p.m. Agree 0
    Tim Grafton .. you should be ashamed of the industry you represent .. if the TAB didn't pay out on a bet for over four years the people of New Zealand would have you all guillotined by now. This code is a load of rubbish and urgent, backdated legislation is required to fix claimants lives. Bring on the next election
  • Jeremy Smillie | 02 Mar 2015, 07:28 p.m. Agree 0
    "Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction."
    Perhaps Tim Grafton would like to review his comments. It would be most positive if he wrote a letter to John Keys publicly supporting legislation to enshrine a duty of Utmost Good Faith on insurers and insured alike, many other jurisdictions have such legislation.
    It would be great PR for the Insurance Industry under his leadership and would restore some of the credibility the NZ Insurance Industry has lost, particularly after the Canterbury Earthquake sequence. Any increased costs on the insurance industry would easily become built into premiums.
    Here's an example from Australia he could back:
    INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 13

    The duty of the utmost good faith
    (1) A contract of insurance is a contract based on the utmost good faith and there is implied in such a contract a provision requiring each party to it to act towards the other party, in respect of any matter arising under or in relation to it, with the utmost good faith.

    (2) A failure by a party to a contract of insurance to comply with the provision implied in the contract by subsection (1) is a breach of the requirements of this Act.

    (3) A reference in this section to a party to a contract of insurance includes a reference to a third party beneficiary under the contract.

    (4) This section applies in relation to a third party beneficiary under a contract of insurance only after the contract is entered into.
Post a reply