Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By bigwhistle
With insurance companies using dubious tactics to avoid paying out claims; is it not in all our interests for those that are self employed to form limited companies to avoid losing our personal assets should a mistake have been made on our behalf?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
I agree that there may be benefits for the self-employed to form limited companies to protect their personal assets.
However, to accuse insurance companies of dubious tactics and 'scams' fails to appreciate that the self-employed need to assure themselves that the level of insurance cover they are purchasing is sufficient and meets their needs.
I have long argued that CPD for H&S professionals should encompass core 'business skills' and not just concentrate on safety and health topics. Just as we expect line managers to undertake H&S training, we should get some training in issues such as insurance cover, marketing, business administration, personnel etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Good shout!
Thats why an MBA is more important than doing a Phd if you want to get ahead in business
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bigwhistle
Stu
Insurance companies have been the subject of a vast amount of litigation and bad publicity over recent years so there is little point in playing the national anthem.
The Whistle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Following the Merrett v Babb case in 2001, a salaried professionals can now be liable in his or her personal capacity, to a client, notwithstanding that they were acting in the course of their employment when the advice was given.
Limited company status no longer protects you from future potential claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
I totally agree! However, exercising reasonable skill and care does provide protection; that’s why it is important to overstep the boundaries of your competence.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bigwhistle
Well that was a surprising judgement and it certainly looks like having a Limited company will not safeguard you if you bells up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
A late commnet - apologies.
I'm not entirely sure what "scams" are being referred to in this posting. Generally speaking claims are successful - we in the insurance industry are often criticised for rolling over and paying claims...!
Anyone carrying out a business should protect themselves against claims whether it be a claim from a third party (covered under Public Liability) or a claim in connection with the carrying out of ones professional duties e.g. as surveyor, consultant or whatever (Professional Indemnity). It doesen't matter too much whether one is a sole trader/self employed or a limited company in my view. Each claim is treated on its own merits and a good insurer will keep in touch and let you, the policyholder know the progress on the claim. If the claim is "turned down" that's the end of it.. nothing to pay by the insurer or you the insured/policyholder. aprt perhaps from some legal expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bigwhistle
I think we in the insurance industry cannot be counted as unbias advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Good evening to all
I neither work in the insurance business nor for an insurance company [at the moment].
My view of insurance companies may seem excessively jaundiced and cynical, but it works for me.
Firstly, they're in business for the same reason as the rest of us - to make a profit.
Second, be very aware that it's a system loaded in the insurers favour - they use my money to fight your claim!!
I always consider that insurance companies will attempt to persuade me to part with as much of my cash as they can [something that can actually happen whether I agree or not incidentally - especially with PI Insurance & EL Insurance & car insurance].
Once the Insurance company has my money they will attempt to hang on to as much of it as they can for as long as possible and use every contractual squirm to do so [a concept that is continually being publicly reinforced by the behaviour of many companies that have taken on a "Risk" and have now to pay out].
Once you get your head round those concepts, it's a lot easier to stop thinking of them as benevolent institutions.
Incidentally bigwhistle; what insurance related activity set you off!
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bigwhistle
Frank
We are singing off the same hymn sheet on this one. Basically I know because I have had to battle against Insurance companies for other people via the old Ombudsmen scheme. I also enjoy BBC watchdog which regularly features our friends from the Insurance industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paulfriend
I am another "we in the insurance industry" but I am also a "we in the safety industry" and both are honourable professions that attract their fair share of negative publicity.
When some persons refer to "insurance scams" they should spell out what they mean. They should also be prepared to put their name to them !
When having negative thoughts about the insurance industry persons might like to ponder what they would do without it. Most businesses could not trade without sharing their risks, most employees would not be compensated for their injuries, safety consultants would not have PI cover to fall back on when errors occur that protect their personal assets.
The insurance industry is not perfect..but it is honourable.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Paul
I am dubious of insurance companies being 'honourable' from conversations with claims assessors and the things they have told me regards knocking out claims (dubious tactics of setting up situations that can then be filmed and presented to court etc) also from personal knowledge I am aware of a legitimate claim where requests for information from both insurers were ignored for about two and a half years, after this period of inactivity the claiment changed solicitor.
The new solicitor recognised that the insurance companies were trying to get the case struck out by ignoring RFI's until the three year period for making a claim in court had elapsed. He recommended that a case was lodged with the court even though there was minimal information.
At that point one of the insurance companies started to provide information, the other ended up being ordered by the court to provide information.
Bearing in mind that the of the information being requested, some had direct relation and impact to the medical treatment that the claiment was undergoing at the time.
I would hardly call that behaviour honourable, and the two insurers are both big household name companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paulfriend
Brett
Insurance fraud is a very big problem. Insurance companies are custodians of your money and mine and have a duty to fight fraud on every front.
I have no doubt your experiences are not without foundation and there many cases where people feel they have not been treated fairly.Indeed I am not without my personal grievances eg endowment policies not paying out what they promised. I dont classify these as scams.
For every bad cases there are many more where the protection of insurance has done a lot of good.
There are bad dentists, dodgy doctors, less than competent safety consultants selling the same safety policy to all their clients and others who won't do risk assessments, ambulance chasing lawyers..but statements such as these should not be allowed to tarnish an entire profession.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.