Scribd
Upload
176 views2 pages

Banking & Insurance

This case study involves a woman, Mrs. A, who made an insurance claim after her car was stolen. The insurance firm denied her claim because she failed to disclose four previous speeding convictions when applying for and renewing her policy. Although the broker completed the application form, Mrs. A should have checked the answers. The ombudsman ruled that her failure to disclose was an oversight, not deliberate, and the convictions were minor. The firm agreed to pay 85% of the claim since they would have still insured her, but at a higher premium.

Uploaded by

LAXMIRAWAT
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
176 views2 pages

Banking & Insurance

This case study involves a woman, Mrs. A, who made an insurance claim after her car was stolen. The insurance firm denied her claim because she failed to disclose four previous speeding convictions when applying for and renewing her policy. Although the broker completed the application form, Mrs. A should have checked the answers. The ombudsman ruled that her failure to disclose was an oversight, not deliberate, and the convictions were minor. The firm agreed to pay 85% of the claim since they would have still insured her, but at a higher premium.

Uploaded by

LAXMIRAWAT
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

KAUSHAL CHAUHAN.SYBMS:14.

Case Studies:
CASE STUDY 1:
Mrs A insured her car through an insurance broker in August 1999. When her car was stolen in June 2001, she contacted the firm to make a claim. The firm discovered that she had a total of four convictions for speeding. In September 1994, September 1995 and April 1996 she had been convicted for driving at over 30 mph in a 30 mph area. In March 2000 she was convicted for exceeding a 60 mph limit. The firm refused to meet Mrs As claim because she had not mentioned the convictions. It said that both when she first applied for the insurance, and again when she renewed the policy in August 2000, it had specifically asked whether she had received any convictions in the previous five years. Mrs A said that the broker had completed the proposal form for her and she had simply signed it. She said she had not intentionally concealed any information from the firm. However, since her offences were relatively minor, she considered that even if she had told the firm about them, it would still have insured her. complaint upheld in part The question on the proposal form about convictions was clearly worded. And even though it was the broker, not Mrs A, who had completed the form, Mrs A should have checked the answers carefully before she signed it. However, we considered that her failure to do so was an oversight, rather than a deliberate attempt to conceal the convictions from the firm. The firm agreed that the convictions were relatively minor. It also agreed that it would still have insured her if it had known about them. But it said that it would, initially, have charged her 12% more for her premiums. It would then have charged a further 5% when she renewed the policy in 2000. So her failure to disclose her convictions meant that she had paid less than she should have done. In the circumstances, we felt that a fair and reasonable settlement would be for the firm to meet the claim on a proportional basis. The firm agreed and paid Mrs A 85% of the value of her claim.

LINK: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25insurance-casestudies-non-disclosure.htm

CASE STUDY 2:
The insured purchased a life insurance policy in 1976 from an insurance company. He made arrangements with his bank to pay his premiums by means of a standing order. The insured went away from Trinidad and Tobago for an extended period. In 2000, the insured became aware of an outstanding loan of approximately $20,000.00 against his policy. He claimed to have made attempts between 2001 and 2005 to get information from the insurance company about the loan but was unsuccessful. In 2006, he was advised that an Automatic Premium Loan (APL) had been applied against his policy for the months in which the company had not received payments of premium, in accordance with the terms of the policy contract. The insurance company also indicated that he was advised of the APL from as early as 1998, via correspondence mailed to the same address which had not changed from inception, starting with a loan balance of approximately $6,300.00. The complainant claimed that he did not receive any such letter asked only to pay the loan balance as at 1998. This request was denied by the insurance company on the basis that the insured had not reported any change of address at any time during his relationship with the insurance company. In fact, his address remained the same to date. Having sent the correspondence to his usual mailing address, they felt that they had satisfied their obligation. Additionally, they had no record of any attempt being made to query the outstanding accumulated loan amount, which increased as further premium loans and compound interest were added over time.

LINK: http://www.ofso.org.tt/InsuranceCaseStudy3/tabid/101/Default.aspx

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy