Editor's comment: Rewriting the Riot Act

Jonathan Swift

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 copy this content. Please contact info@postonline.co.uk to find out more.

Are higher home excesses killing smaller claims?

After Verisk saw a 17% increase in the average home insurance claims cost, due to a decline in the number of low-value claims submitted by policyholders, Scott McGee asks: what is causing customers to stop submitting small claims?

Verisk London 2024: Key takeaways

In the fourth and final video recorded at the Verisk Insurance Conference in London, Insurance Post content director Jonathan Swift spoke to delegates and speakers about the lessons they learned at this year’s event.

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have an Insurance Post account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here