Editor's comment: Rewriting the Riot Act
I thought April had come early when I saw last week's headlines praising insurers for their handling of the riot claims for 2011.
But further inspection revealed that this was no April Fool’s Day prank, and the Riots Victims and Communities Panel report, After the Riots, did indeed pay the industry a few compliments.
Of course, this story did not receive as much air time as other angles, but the fact the report found that, by the end of February, over 90% of claims for damage to domestic properties had been settled was proof that the noises coming from insurers and brokers had been backed up with actions.
Perhaps even more remarkably the RVCP also found that some 85% of SME claims for property damage have either been settled or the business has received some form of interim payment from their insurer.
However, there was a flipside and for once it was the insurers that had the gripes about how slowly their claims were being settled - or even rejected. Indeed the RVCP found that the Mayor’s Office for Planning and Crime has settled only 396 of the 2538 insurer claims.
Charles Taylor Adjusting and Davies, appointed by the MOPC to handle riot-related claims, have stated that many of the larger cases are complicated. Both also insisted they are not sitting on claims but could move only as fast as the insurers and the police let them.
Andrew Homewood, director of non-marine at Charles Taylor Adjusting, predicted some cases involving damaged buildings could take two years to settle.
So where does this leave the Riot (Damages) Act? The RVCP has backed the Association of British Insurers’ stance that it remains "fundamentally fit for purpose", although it believes it should include coverage for loss of motor vehicles and that clarity is needed on whether the Act should also provide coverage for ‘business interruption’ losses.
Whether these points are considered as the Home Office conducts its review into the Act remains to be seen. But what is clear is that there is considerable scope for improvement and, until this is addressed, the police, insurers and loss adjusters will continue to reach an impasse over claims.
Hopefully once the dust has settled all sides can feed back their experiences and lessons can be learnt, or we will be standing in a similar spot should we see a repeat of the scenes of August 2011.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@postonline.co.uk or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.postonline.co.uk/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@postonline.co.uk to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@postonline.co.uk to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@postonline.co.uk
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@postonline.co.uk