Once again
the news is all about floods. Most of the country has been affected including
the North Wales
City of St. Asaph which is not far
from Liverpool –
These
unfortunate residents have had to evacuate their homes and lost thousands in
damaged or ruined possessions. Never have they been more in need of good
insurance cover. The last news they need to hear is that they could have difficulties
getting insurance in the future just because of where they happen to live.
Following floods
in 2008 the insurance industry agreed with the government to renew cover albeit
at a high cost. That agreement is coming to an end and today we hear that talks
between the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Government have
stalled –
This means
that the flood victims could find that future insurance premiums will be too steep
to afford or simply unavailable. There cannot be anything worse than losing
your home and possessions and then having to face the extra worry about whether
you will have any protection if the same thing happens again.
This breakdown
in talks comes as a bit of a surprise.
When it
comes to slashing the rights of ordinary people to bring claims for
compensation, the Government and the ABI seem to work in perfect harmony –
But when it
comes to protecting the rights of ordinary people to insurance following a
disaster the whole thing grinds to a halt.
Of course,
there will be those who will say that it is the victims fault for living there,
and that they should move. That is much easier said than done. It has never
been harder to sell properties and these houses will be virtually unsellable. In
the meantime these residents are stuck where they are. The government and the
industry should do all they can to sort out this mess.
The
insurers will be saving a fortune as a result of the massive cuts in the right
to bring motor claims. How about some of that going to flood victims rather
than shareholders?
If your pension fund has share in the insurance companies, and I bet it does, you need to think again. Why should insurers be forced to bet against a near-certainty?
ReplyDelete