*** LONDON AND ESSEX OPINION - PLEASE READ ***

* WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT AMERICAN STYLE "NO WIN NO FEE" LAW SUITS ARE *
* NOW VERY POPULAR - PROMPTING MORE CLAIMS & HIGHER CLAIM PAYMENTS *

When any business faces higher costs it must take action to increase income (premiums) and reduce costs e.g. employ fewer or less costly staff, move to cheaper premises (such as India) but when its competitors do similar it has to look for even more effective ways of saving costs.

In theory one way of saving is to go direct and not have to pay brokers a commission but this is offset by increased marketing costs (TV/Radio/Press adverts etc). The downside is that the client doesn't have the benefit of a broker's advice/help - especially when it comes to claims.

Would you seriously consider facing a tax or police investigation without the sound advice of an accountant or solicitor? A good broker's assistance can be invaluable when losses occur.

Another major saving for an insurer is to be far more stringent toward claim payments. A number of insurers now have electronic "lie-detectors" linked to their claims lines.

We've all heard of claims not being met, leaving the client liable personally. (When thieves assaulted her son/stole items worth £1m - Cilla Black's insurers refused the claim simply because she didn't have the right locks on her windows). But how can insurers refuse to pay?

THERE ARE AT LEAST 30-40 FACTORS AFFECTING ACCEPTANCE OF AN AVERAGE POLICY - CONSIDERABLY MORE WHEN IT COMES TO SOME COMMERCIAL RISKS. POLICY DOCUMENTS ARE CONTRACTUALLY BINDING AND THE CLIENT IS EXPECTED TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE POLICY BOOKS, THE ENDORSEMENTS AND THE SCHEDULES APPLICABLE TO THEIR RISK - YET IF WE SEE TV ADVERTS THE ONLY THING WE SEEM TO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IS HOW CHEAP IS THE PREMIUM !!!

MORE