Apparently the order was rapidly withdrawn.
The reason the Insurance companies do it, is because in the majority of cases they get away with it.
One should note the False advertising.
How about RSPCA Pet Insurance, they pay out 80% of the claim with NO EXCESS.
NO EXCESS is Bovine Manure, there is a variable excess that is 20% of the Bill.
In all other Instances where there is a fixed excess, the amount paid out is the Cost of the Replacement or Restitution, less the Policy Excess.
Would you take Car or Home and Contents Insurance where the Insurer met only 80% of the loss, and had the cheek to claim there was no excess.
(Comprehensive) Car? Maybe. It all depends on the price of the insurance. You could be financially better off paying less for insurance each year (which you may never use) but accept that if you do make a claim, you will be up for 20% of the cost of the car (worst case). On a small claim, 20% of the claim could easily be below the excess that would otherwise apply.
It is not unusual for insurers to give the customer the choice to trade-off price against the amount of risk that the customer takes on.
(The reason I added âComprehensiveâ is that I suspect that, for CTP, having insurance that only paid out 80% would not be allowed by the government i.e. thereâs one standard, centralised scheme with conditions set by the government and you have to take it or take it.)
Home and Contents? Probably not - because 20% would be a very substantial amount, and a risk that many consumers would prefer to pay someone else to take on.
That would be debatable. Ultimately it comes down to the meaning of âexcessâ. What you mean by âexcessâ is different from what typically insurers mean by âexcessâ. I think you would need a citation to establish that your meaning is in use.
Regardless, as long as they clearly disclose that they will only pay out 80% of the claim, I donât have a problem with it.
