Hello Fellow Policyholder!

Rules...they are changing
"Policy Ensurance" excerpt: www.disasterprepared.net/contents.html

Both the N.A.I.C Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Regulation (previous model) and the NAIC Unfair Property/Casualty Claims Settlement Practices Model Regulation (current model) were reprinted by permission of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The two are included for reference so policyholders are aware of the rules change.

There are conspicuous differences in the old versus the current model. The first noticeable difference is the statement under Section 1. Authority: The old model specifies that insurance companies are prohibited from engaging in unfair claims settlement practices with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and that those acts shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. The current model merely says, "This regulation is adopted under the authority of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act." An average policyholder reading this current model would probably not understand what is or is not a violation of the regulation because the wording that gave that explanation has now been eliminated...

More.

A Post-mortem
February, 2001 dialogue between The Massachusetts Department of Insurance and Antone P. Braga concerning property insurance "Standard Policy"

(DOI wrote:) 1. The policy changes are not an "erosion of the insureds authority or position". In all cases, it is a broadening:

(Braga wrote:) ^It is precisely that broadening that has weakened the consumer's position. When once it was clear and defined, it is now up for interpretation. When once it was clearly a responsibility and authority of the policyholder to file the claim, it is now broadened into a statement of loss at the request of the insurance company. When once there was leverage for a timely response there is a weakening...

See full article.

Expediency

A friend of mine said, "I would rather have a Harvard professor on my side anytime than a public defender." His comment had to do with the inequity of the "haves" affording the best attorneys while the "have nots" have less than expert counsel. I replied, "Not always. Let me show you something from an insurance claims manual. It was written with the counsel of a Harvard professor who counselled many large insurance companies as well as many other major industries in the art of 'winning' in dealings with the public." After reading some passages he said, "That can't be right." This coming from someone not sophisticated in insurance matters, but nonetheless he saw the obvious–the attitude is clearly to win, not to find common ground. It is also clear that the company feels their behavior is fair and just, and of course legal. The point is that even the best counsel can be led astray by the pervasive "winning" philosophy. This beguiling policy is narrowly focused on short term self-interest and ignores a basic consideration: the view from the other side–a rather large oversight that can and will come back to deliver retribution...

See full article.

Your Call
the power to determine

In addition to "the power to determine," authority is also the basic right to control and command what is ours, though often subject to a higher authority. It is this habit to relinquish that is pervasive so as to eradicate the concept of personal authority. It becomes difficult to know what is ours to determine and what is trumped by some other. And, naturally if giving up authority means an easier way, it is often taken. Being less sure from the outset and then to find what appears an easier path is quite an invitation for unconcern. At that exact juncture of capitulation is the matter for focus and most concern. Once you surrender authority it is very difficult to regain...

See full article.