We use cookies to improve this site and enable full functionality. You can change your cookie settings at any time using your browser. Our cookie policy.

Revealed: Insurance cost of London Grenfell Tower fire

Revealed: Insurance cost of London Grenfell Tower fire

Revealed: Insurance cost of London Grenfell Tower fire The fire that engulfed a 24-storey London tower block this week is expected to lead to an insurance bill of more than £25 million, according to Norwegian insurer Protector Forsikring.

The company’s chief executive, Sverre Bjerkeli, said Protector wrote the policy for the building, Grenfell Tower, which amounted to about £20 million, according to a Reuters report.

Bjerkeli said today that the firm expects its reinsurance program – handled by Munich Re – will pick up “almost the entire cost,” from the fire that broke out on Wednesday morning, killing at least 17 people.

Additional costs, including alternative housing for residents, will make up the rest of the bill, the CEO added.

Jardine Lloyd Thompson has also revealed that it was the insurance broker for building. “We are the brokers in the case and we are working closely with our client to assist in whatever capacity we can,” JLT said in a statement emailed to Reuters.

Related stories:
New risk association chairman to brokers – tell me what I’m paying you
Aviva looking for acquisitions
  • Keith Jackson 16/06/2017 16:35:01
    Having retired from the insurance industry in 2006 after 50 years, I find it hard to believe that a qualified fire surveyor would have approved Grenfell Tower if the reports on the construction and fire safety are accurate. One wonders what MPL percentage was given. This is a reflection on the industry as a whole and leads one to believe that the vigilance is far less than at the time of my retirement. I am presently engaged in property management and have yet to receive a visit from an insurance fire surveyor in the past 5 years despite some of the properties being in the category that used to warrant survey. Prudent underwriting seems to be a skill of the past and risk management something that is overlooked. I expect the phrase ' lessons will be learned' to be to the forefront but a return to the former sound and established practices would solve the majority of problems. The lack of training and qualifications does little to improve the situation but since employers give no rewards to those who intend to make a career in insurance and no tenure of secure employment then it is not difficult to understand why there are so my loopholes in what used to be a solid system. Keith Jackon FCII FBIBA Chartered Insurance Practitioner retired.
    Post a reply
  • Hugo Charles toby 16/06/2017 19:18:52
    Well said Keith
    I totally agree with your comments on the matter ; so often so called "professionals" are qualified as insurance brokers &/or insurers or insurance experts!
    I'm not yet retired ; spent many years operating as a loss adjuster / loss prevention surveyor prior to my years in reinsurance & retail insurance broking on massive CAR / EAR projects working out of italy but closely with Lloyds & other major first class insurers / reinsurers! My years spent in the commercial credit insurance business taught me many a lesson about business & businesses but the truest words I ever heard were those said by my boss when I was a young trainee ~ he said Hugo we're all good salesmen & brokers until there's a claim ! If the claim is covered you're a good insurance broker & professional in your day to day duties ! If the claim isn't covered you're an asshole like so many others !
    Sorry to be so brutal but when I lost 2 daughters in a fatal car accident 9 years ago I was told by insurers that my girls were each worth £10,000 I was speechless but I was told by a first class insurer that given their age (20 & 18 respectively) & still at university they were essentially worth nothing !!!
    Post a reply
  • Cologne 17/06/2017 13:42:37
    I am a Structural Engineer and know for a fact that this is exactly how councils, management companies and consultancies work. Instead of doing the work for themselves and for insurance requirements, the councils hire management companies who subsequently pass the buck onto engineering and design consultancies, who are expected to sign the building off with minimal requirements 'within reason' and to the building regulations. Unfortunately what many people are unaware of is that such engineering consultancies are only interested in winning more work in the future and are under pressure to give the least conservative views as possible so that the building can be classed as safe. Not reporting or ignoring defects meant minimised costs for the management company. It is also of benefit for the council because they don't need to rehouse the residents. A few such consultancies include McGregor Mcmahon, Elliott Wood Consulting, Fairhurst consulting, IKM Consulting and Evolve consulting. The fact that structural engineers have been appointed to monitor the building in its current form, when emergency demolition should be carried out as soon as possible shows just how delusional the council actually is trying to save its own ass and how such consultancies milk the system.
    Post a reply