Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
A major point that appears to have been overlooked by all parties is that, completely unlike insuance cover , under ACC there is no contractual liability. It is actually nonsense for ACC to speak of the future costs of claims as liabilities, because there is no contract.

If I take out an insurance policy, and the terms are that if so-and-so (eg an accident) occurs , they will pay me $Y, or an annuity of $Z per year (inflation adjusted), that is a contract. They must pay me the $Y or $Z. If they have a bad year , tough. No court would entertain a defence along the lines of "Well, yes, the contract said $Z per year. But, we are losing money, we think we can't afford $Z. So we want to pay a smaller amount".

But that is not the case with ACC. For instance, at present the rate of ERC is 80% of pre injury earnings. But ACC are under no contractual liability to pay that. The government could at a stroke reduce it to 70% or 60% , as they have already proposed. And that reduced rate would be applicable both to existing claims (those that happened in the past) and future claims.

The entitlements under ACC are not contractually based. Either for future claims, or past claims. They are at a rate that is set only for the moment.

A corollary therefore of ACC wishing to be an insurance company is that they should NOT be able to change entitlements. Once the claim is accepted, the entitlements are locked in for all time. I do not think ACC would want to accept that condition. They want the best of both worlds. To claim to be an insurance company but refuse to accept the contractual liabilities of an insurance company.
This is why it's such a good buy for the Private sector. This deal is unavailable anywhere else. It's a money making gold mine that will be 'given away' at any price.

Skyryder