Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AN INSURANCE COMPANY refused to pay a woman’s claim after an accident because she told them in her claim form that she was unemployed.
The woman had listed her occupation as ‘gardener’ when she renewed her policy, but was unemployed at the time of the claim. Her case is one of a number of examples given in an annual report by the Financial Services Ombudsman this week.
The ombudsman’s office said that in 2017 there were 1,914 complaints about insurance.
In this instance, the woman was asked her occupation when she renewed her policy and she told the company she was a gardener.
Following an accident, she submitted a claim in which she stated that she was unemployed. The provider declined the claim on the grounds that she had not disclosed that she was unemployed at the time of renewal.
The woman claimed that the information she provided upon renewal was accurate, as she had been working as a gardener in the community on a voluntary basis, and that she had provided the information in the interests of full disclosure.
During mediation facilitated by the Ombudsman’s office, the provider agreed to assess her claim and subsequently paid her over €4,000.
Complaints about insurance products and services accounted for 42% of all complaints received in 2017. Similar to 2016, motor insurance was the main product type complained about, representing 33% of insurance complaints.
Another example given in the report was of a woman whose car insurance was cancelled due to non-disclosure when she was applying for the policy.
The non-disclosure related to whether or not she had been involved in an accident – regardless of blame – in the past three years. As a result of the cancellation, she struggled to afford insurance premiums, and it negatively affected her business.
As part of a mediated agreement, the provider decided to rescind the cancellation on the basis that the woman may not have fully understood the questions because English was not her first language.
She also received a refund of the premium loading applied during the period in question. Although this was not a large sum, the woman felt this was a significant result as it provided financial freedom and the ability to shop around for new cover.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie last year, ombudsman Ger Deering expressed concern about insurance companies refusing claims and cancelling customers’ policies because of minor non-disclosures.
In many of these cases, companies are asking “vague questions” and leaving it to the consumer to decide whether something is a material issue.
“I would say that consumers need to be very careful about the kind of questions they’re being asked and answer them correctly and providers need to ask the questions in a clear manner that is understandable,” he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I cannot understand why the Gov do not invest that money into the Air Corp and let them carry out all SAR missions, as it is the AirCorp carry out many missions already.
At least this way the Gov would own the helis etc instead send money out of the state.
@Brian Guilfoyle: Depreciation, maybe? I’d imagine those helis are rugged, because they get a lot of use.
@Brian Guilfoyle: Absolutely 100% agree, the Coast Guard should be more closely integrated into Defence Forces , we have spent the guts of € Billion with CHC. We need to invest in Aer Corps and Navy to deliver a world class Coast Guard and Naval Patrol. Irish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in terms of Maritime territory is 11 times the size of Ireland. The Government should at this a strategic long term Investment if they are serious about Ireland’s Neutrally or Militarily non -aligned. Our capabilities are really poor when when compared with other “Neutral“ countries.
We need to be position to be able to conduct active 24×7 surveillance & protection of EEZ which contains some the most stratgeic Fibre optic comms between Europe and North America and some of fishing waters on the Globe.
@Brian Guilfoyle: We can’t even operate a basic Defence Force as it is, the thing is falling apart at the seams – plus we need help from the UK to protect our own airspace. Don’t forget the Air Corps ‘weren’t available’ the night of the R116 tragedy either….just another in a long history of unavailability. Can you imagine the current AC doing SAR in all fairness. Sorry to hear your ship is sinking, but the AC “is not available”… The Government is obviously at fault and needs to invest the same if not more into the Defence Forces before it can even ‘consider’ doing SAR. This is a 24-7 role with 98%+ availability, not a ’9 to 5′ jobbie.
@Frank Flanagan: were the Air Corps supposed to be waiting on an emergency that night 116 went down??? Crews are paid to be on duty… CHC had had Crews paid to be in Dublin, Waterford, Shannon and Sligo 24 x 7… that was their contract.. the Air Corps carried out SAR for 42 years prior to politicians awarding th contract to CHC… The Air Corps has been slowly draining since..
I just hope it’s not going to be another taxpayer sponsored service outsourced abroad
@Daniel Dudek:
Or brown envelope job
Service must be working so now it’s going to get broken. Why can’t they just renew the contract with the same people. Has someone got a vested interest here I wonder.
@Dave Barrett: or maybe there’s better aircraft or deal to be had. There’s plenty to moan about with our government but the amount of just baseless conjecture is astonishing. Moaning journal.
It seemed that we in Ireland are hell-bent on outsourcing to private companies making people believe we are getting a better deal… but the reality is we’re not at €670 million… has an average helicopter for this purpose is about €20 million which Air Corps equipped with 4 would only be required…Air Corps is also getting two new C295 SaR aircraft is designed for this purpose…so there is €500 million been wasted by this government.
@PMac: They can buy all the aircraft in the world, but when you haven’t got the qualified staff to operate them, whats the point.
Does anyone know are the crews and helicopters employed by CHC and therefore they will either lose their jobs or have to be rehired, and the machines potentially sent off to some other contract, or is it that this Bristow crew will just step in and crews and helicopters will just keep going pretty much as is with other people managing logistics that kinda thing? Seems mad to dismantle a service that’s already there and get in and train new crews etc potentially. In that case the government should have just bought out CHC Ireland and folded it into the army services. It’s not like we couldn’t afford it, it’s just that we’d probably feck up running it.
@bazhealy: Bristow will have to use their own machines, likely crews also though I imagine the current crews could/will apply for to fill their own positions.
Should be the Aircorps, end of!
@Chutes: thanks Chutes. Yes it should. Without a shadow of a doubt.
Air corps had it before CHC and the crash at Tramore scuppered their chance of getting it..
Probably over the outcome of the accident
Which was pilot error but the insurer
Would not pay out the claims for the 3 deaths of the rest of the crew and the aircraft.
A very messy case indeed .
Bristow operate alot oil rig work etc
Can I ask a question, how
Somebody must have done the maths
have your say