Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Dana, the relationship between the Insurance industry and their clients here is strictly confrontational. The Companies looking for loopholes the slither out with a bigger bottom line and their clients looking for any leverage to force a fair or better settlement.
|
Some people here have a similar relationship with their insurers - in my experience, that's usually because they have bought their policy without understanding what it does - often because they've gone by comparison websites, which give a very tiny snapshot of the headline cover without giving any real sense of the kinds of exclusions which may apply.
Or they've thrown the handy booklet they got sent when they took the policy out straight into the drawer without reading it - there is a cancellation period - you look in the booklet under 'what is covered' and 'what is not covered' and read the definitions for each section.
People take out a policy and opt for accidental damage cover for their contents but don't bother to read the part about having to have the Technology and Entertainment add-on for their laptop to be covered and then get shitty with the claims team and tell all their friends the insurance company weaseled out of their claim.
Or they play with the comparison site quotes increasing and decreasing their 'voluntary excess' to see what it does to their premiums, opt for a £500 voluntary excess on top of their £100 compulsory excess and then get upset when they have £400 of damage and there's nothing we can do because it falls within their excess.
Years of legislative control and an ombudsman with teeth means companies have to make their cover very clear in the policy documents - if it's not clear, and a declined claim is challenged and goes to the ombudsman they will always err on the customer's side. Ambiguity is always decided against the writer of the contract.
That was always the case with contract law, but the regulatory system and the statutary duty to abide by a code of conduct that includes 'Treating customers fairly' has cost financial organisations a lot of money. Companies have faced fines for things like incentivising shorter call times where it has been seen to add to mis-selling of policies/ financial products.
When the policy wording comes through - it is not a case of big headlines and a bunch of fine print - it's clearly marked sections, with each exclusion stated very clearly next to the cover it is excluded from.
There are odd bits that require a little interpretation, and I totally get why those could be frustrating, but sometimes it's really obvious stuff and the customer treats it like we've strung them along and then thrown up unexpected road blocks to avoid paying out.
That can be frustrating for us :P Especially if you spend time exploring every possible avenue for them, to see if there is any way of covering the claim, or part of the claim, or even just getting them access to our suppliers as part of a claim that won't go anywhere so that they can use them with our discount. And then they always say the same thing: 'I know it's not you love, you've a job to do. But no offence, insurance companies, always do this - they don't mind taking our money every month, but the first time I make a claim and I get nothing' or words to that effect.
And I've got a booklet in front of me that they received like 4 months prior that states very clearly 'damage from ingress of water except by storm or flood is not covered' along with a whole policy exclusion in the 'Conditions and exclusions that apply to this policy' section, in bold type : '...wear and tear, or any gradually operating cause'.
So don't lecture me about shady insurance companies looking for ways not to pay because your roof got nail sickness, and the slipped roof tiles allowed a slow ingress of rainwater across several months. There is nothing I can do with that. And it's as clear as it could be without adding a flashing sign.
K. I shall dismount my hobby horse and resume my back to the beginning Agents of Shield rewatch.