AMI Insurance

[kevie]

I guess the governments thoughts are to look after the victims in chch more than the seemingly bale out another poor company ..... BUT

One thought that comes to mind is ...... I always believed that to be an insurance company they had to have a certain equity to cover all possible claims in the event they went bust ?!?! isnt that what the delay is in selling ACC?? or am I old and confused (dont answer that)

One worry is .... now they have baled out AMI ..has the government now set themselves up to be obligated to bale out all the other insurance companies that may also plead hard-up over christchurch quake.... or any disaster in the future.

[cheshirecat]

MIght be a question of underwriting AMI so they can get reinsurance/raise capitol /have lunch.
I mean how many outfits here actually take earthquake/volcano risks seriously here.
When we had that Japanese Tsuami warning the Geonet website went down- really useful that is in an imergency.

We need these guys - They will be finished soon so they could come over here for a month.

[Edbear]

I guess the governments thoughts are to look after the victims in chch more than the seemingly bale out another poor company ..... BUT

One thought that comes to mind is ...... I always believed that to be an insurance company they had to have a certain equity to cover all possible claims in the event they went bust ?!?! isnt that what the delay is in selling ACC?? or am I old and confused (dont answer that)

One worry is .... now they have baled out AMI ..has the government now set themselves up to be obligated to bale out all the other insurance companies that may also plead hard-up over christchurch quake.... or any disaster in the future.

As you say, the Govt. is trying to help the people affected. They do have strict criteria so any company crying poor has a few hoops to jump through. They don't just hand out a few million bucks on a handshake and she'll be right mate...

The company may have been blindsided by the enormity of the disaster but they will have some hard questions to answer.

[AllanB]

I've been with AMI forever and I'll stay with them. Been a great company to deal with all these years. I wish them a full recovery.

DITTO


Plus my house is stuffed so I have no choice as no one else will insure it until AMI fix it!

Sick of the fucking media wanking on about 'tax payer' money going to cover AMI - I've been paying taxes for the past 30 years I've been working.

Aucklanders moaning about AMI can stick their plastic Waka up their .......

[Grumpy Gnomb]

if people cancel their insurance with ami wont that mean less money they will have to pay claims and then they might have to call on the govt fallback position earlier

[AllanB]

if people cancel their insurance with ami wont that mean less money they will have to pay claims and then they might have to call on the govt fallback position earlier

Yeah, thinking the same mate - if the rest of NZ panicand pull their AMI insurance policies .........

[The Stranger:Me]

Thanks oscar for clarifying. Now all i can say is the govt is bailing out a lemon with tax payer money.

Which would you prefer - the govt bail them out or a random selection of cantabrians get fucked up?

[The Stranger:Me]

Plus my house is stuffed so I have no choice as no one else will insure it until AMI fix it!

Sick of the fucking media wanking on about 'tax payer' money going to cover AMI - I've been paying taxes for the past 30 years I've been working.

Aucklanders moaning about AMI can stick their plastic Waka up their .......

Thanks, but such humility is really not necessary.

[Oakie]

if people cancel their insurance with ami wont that mean less money they will have to pay claims and then they might have to call on the govt fallback position earlier

Why would you cancel? They have a government guarantee. No other company has that!

[mashman]

did you actually read it?
I see that they think they have enough reserves to cover christchurch but may not have the cashflow to cover other claims.
They cover 30% of christchurches residential claims
how much reserves do you think they should have
How much reinsurance is more the point

And yes I as a policy holder own part of the company. Which worries me if my home burnt down now would my claim be honoured

I wonder what your opinion of ACCs future funding was?

Yes i did read it. In my naivety, i thought an insurer had to have X amount of money for situations like this, assets "in hand" to cover the liabilities... if that's the case, and they didn't have enough and blew it coz they weren't covered for such an eventuality, then tought shit. Let them go to the wall. I don't want to pay any more tax to fund the rescue package. Pay out what it can, the use that $1 billion of our tax money to cover what AMI couldn't. Pissing about with it will only waste more time and money (and a fair chunk of that $1 bill will go towards "administration", not those who need the assistance). Bin it, pay the people directly... they might be able to afford a new insurer after that.

I too am a shareholder on more than 1 front and I don't want to subsidise a business that could easily have a 3rd "issue" wipe them out anyway. Waste of time and money.

but that's just mho

hmmmmm, ACC's future funding, let me see

[marie_speeds]

Yeah, thinking the same mate - if the rest of NZ panicand pull their AMI insurance policies .........

But thta is what I think will happen after AMI went to the Govt and their financial probems were exposed in the media

Which would you prefer - the govt bail them out or a random selection of cantabrians get fucked up?

No I wouldn't want to see that happen...one of the reasons I couldn't get my head around it earlier was because when I look at people like my parents as well as others who have paid their insurance for decades without claims, I couldn't understand why there is no money in the kitty, when one assumes that say for the past decade only about 10% of policy holders woud make a caim, most minor, then surely there woud be something. But Oscar then explained how a company like AMI worked so now I understand the no money in the kitty probem.

Why would you cancel? They have a government guarantee. No other company has that!

ACC?

[Naki Rat]

We are AMI customers and intend to stay that way , especially now that they have a government gaurantee of sorts. What I'd like to know though is how much of an effect the EQC's dicking around with ridiculously low repair estimates has had on AMI's difficulties in estimating medium term commitments?

[davereid]

Yes i did read it. In my naivety, i thought an insurer had to have X amount of money for situations like this, assets "in hand" to cover the liabilities... if that's the case, and they didn't have enough and blew it coz they weren't covered for such an eventuality, then tought shit. .....
hmmmmm, ACC's future funding, let me see

AMI did have about a billion dollars in reserves, its possibly more related to the fact that AMI were geographically unbalanced compared to other insurers - they carreid a lot of CHCH based risk. I am sure there are other insurers with a similar problem if Wellington or Auckland had a major disaster, it just happened to be CHCH.

ACC is different. As you are a customer on a compulsory basis, ACC does not need reserves. If they need more money, they simply hike premiums. You cant choose to be uninsured or go elsewhere, so reserves are not required.

Thats why ACC is as much as I hate to say it, best operated by Government, OR best completely abandoned.

Its NOT a model that can be operated at reasonable cost otherwise.

[Oscar]

Yes i did read it. In my naivety, i thought an insurer had to have X amount of money for situations like this, assets "in hand" to cover the liabilities... if that's the case, and they didn't have enough and blew it coz they weren't covered for such an eventuality, then tought shit. Let them go to the wall. I don't want to pay any more tax to fund the rescue package. Pay out what it can, the use that $1 billion of our tax money to cover what AMI couldn't. Pissing about with it will only waste more time and money (and a fair chunk of that $1 bill will go towards "administration", not those who need the assistance). Bin it, pay the people directly... they might be able to afford a new insurer after that.

I too am a shareholder on more than 1 front and I don't want to subsidise a business that could easily have a 3rd "issue" wipe them out anyway. Waste of time and money.

but that's just mho

hmmmmm, ACC's future funding, let me see

You should have stopped typing after you admitted your naivety.

There is no $1b payout, the Govt. is providing a backstop in case claims escalate and also to provide some protection against a run of the company. A run that will be caused by uninformed and stupid comments such as yours.

[Woodman]

My house and contents and vehicles are all with AMI.
If a major earthquake or similar hits Nelson and munts my house, will I get anything from AMI?
Is it worth the risk staying with them?
I would rather change to another insurer and have them pay than have the gummint pay with money they don't really have.