Am I being too sensitive/bloody-minded?

[rogson]

A couple of weeks ago my car was stolen. It's an old beater so was only insured for third party. However, there were a number of personal items in it, so after a week of not hearing anything from the police I decided it was gone for good and I filed a claim for the personal items under my general contents insurance.

Last Friday I agreed a pay-out value with the insurance company and they mailed me a cheque (I was very satisfied with the service up to that point).

However, the police recovered the car over the weekend and, amazingly, all the personal items were still in it.

So, I called the insurance company yesterday, told them I would send the money back and asked them to cancel the claim from their records. At this point I was told they could not remove the record of the claim from the "Insurance Claims Register (ICR) database in Wellington", although it would show that zero pay-out had been made on it. Apparently this is a database that all insurance companies contribute claim information to - including the name of the claimant, type of claim, amount paid-out, etc. I was told that it is used by the industry to detect insurance fraud - but I can imagine it can (is?) also used to log/check the insurance history of people.

The reason given for it not being removed was that it was all done automatically by computer - which I interpreted as there currently being no mechanism in the software to cancel it. I told them I was not happy that it could not be removed explaining that to my mind my returning the money effectively cancelled the claim. I was then told I had been told the information would be logged in the ICR computer when I initially filed the claim (which is true), so that was the end of the matter from the insurance company's standpoint. This smacks of legal posturing to me.

I have asked the insurance company to send me a note explaining what information is logged and why it can't be removed, so at least I will have a record of it - but I am still not really happy.

So, my question is am I being too sensitive/bloody-minded about this? At the very least it smacks of "Big Brother" treatment to me!

[Sniper]

Nope its a good thing. It means that they can follow up on these sorts of things and just see if people make it a habit to lodge a claim and then cancell it.

It's nothing againts the consumer

[Lou Girardin]

Good stuff.
Unless the reason for the zero payout is noted, the assumption will be that your claim was suspect.

[Beemer]

I'd put it all in writing and keep a copy, just to cover myself. Explain that you waited a period of time and then assumed the car - and your personal belongings - were gone for good, and then you submitted your claim. Amazingly the police then recovered the vehicle and all your personal belongings were in it, so you returned the money you received in good faith. I'd point out that you don't have a problem with them keeping a record of the claim on your file, but could it please be noted that the reason you returned the money and wanted the claim cancelled was due to the goods being recovered by the police, and not for any other reason.

[Karma]

I would've kept the money and my personal stuff as well.

Perhaps I'm just not as honest as your good self.

[pyrocam]

hey man, I used to work in the biz you know. the ICR you mean?

the insurance claims register logs every claim for any insurance company (except AMI I think... dummarses) as soon as the claim is logged (or ther-a-bouts)

when you lodge the claim you are given a (ussually) voice recorded message that says 'do you agree that all information given will be stored in the ICR' or words to that affect.

anyways, you cant get it out but theres no point. only insurance companies can access the data and even though the claim was theoretically withdrawn the event still happened. your not gonna feel any shit from this unless you possibly change insurance companies and they ask you about it. When you open a new policy they ask you for previous claim details and then check what you say against the ICR to help assist in fraud detection when you lodge a claim btw so dont like... lie. When you do open a new policy, specify the claim was withdrawn and you will expereince no ill-effects (eg, your NCB)


FUN FACT of the DAY
NCB and NCD mean No claims Bonus and No Claims Discount, the less you claim the higher the number up to a theoretical maximum of about 65% in NZ. Depending on your insurer


mmmmm ramble ramble

[spudchucka]

Weasel's attitude is the reason insurance premiums are so high and also the reason why insurance companies have the checks and balances discussed in the first post.

[Ixion]

I would have thought you would have kept the money and handed over the recovered goods to the insurance company. That's what happens with a stolen car later recovered. Though perhaps the goods had semntimental value?

[Oscar]

Good stuff.
Unless the reason for the zero payout is noted, the assumption will be that your claim was suspect.

...and you know this....how?

A significant number of the claims on the register have a zero balance, due to the fact that people other than the policyholder were liable.

[justsomeguy]

Sorry Sir, the computer doesn't let us change the records. That is how the computer is set. The computer ensures that the information is maintained and stored in the appropriate manner. The computer........

For the love of God - don't any of them have a human working there???

You should retain your no-claims status. If they cannot delete the record they should be able to apend it with the details stating clearly that you retain your no-claims status.

Sounds like dirty profit generating tactics (charge you more for insurance next time).

[Oscar]

Sorry Sir, the computer doesn't let us change the records. That is how the computer is set. The computer ensures that the information is maintained and stored in the appropriate manner. The computer........

For the love of God - don't any of them have a human working there???

You should retain your no-claims status. If they cannot delete the record they should be able to apend it with the details stating clearly that you retain your no-claims status.

Sounds like dirty profit generating tactics (charge you more for insurance next time).

Yes, it's all a conspiracy - in fact Elvis is in charge of it.

Jaysus people, get a grip.
We're talking about a private data base, maintained by private companies who are in competition for your business and bound by the Privacy Act. If you don't like it, don't insure there (there are several insurers who don't subscribe to the service).

Me, I likes it. It helps reduce premiums by making sure scumbags don't get away with ripping off the insurers. If the price of that is a nil balance on a not at fault claim...I can live with it.

[pyrocam]

Yes, it's all a conspiracy - in fact Elvis is in charge of it.

Jaysus people, get a grip.
We're talking about a private data base, maintained by private companies who are in competition for your business and bound by the Privacy Act. If you don't like it, don't insure there (there are several insurers who don't subscribe to the service).

Me, I likes it. It helps reduce premiums by making sure scumbags don't get away with ripping off the insurers. If the price of that is a nil balance on a not at fault claim...I can live with it.

Hear Hear!

although its true Elvis does run it from the google moon base

[Lou Girardin]

...and you know this....how?

A significant number of the claims on the register have a zero balance, due to the fact that people other than the policyholder were liable.

Because insurance companies are known to use the weakest excuses to avoid payouts.
It's been well documented, so get everything in writing, deal only with supervisors (get names), trust no-one.

[Oscar]

Because insurance companies are known to use the weakest excuses to avoid payouts.
It's been well documented, so get everything in writing, deal only with supervisors (get names), trust no-one.

So how would you react to someone at your work turning up with that attitude?


Just a wild guess - you have a lot of trouble with authority, don't you?

[pyrocam]

Because insurance companies are known to use the weakest excuses to avoid payouts.
It's been well documented, so get everything in writing, deal only with supervisors (get names), trust no-one.

thats right, insurance companies only employ one claims handler and 20 supervisors just so they can make sure everyone is getting the best service.

supervisors stuff up more than the handlers when they do the handlers job, they are just there to make decisions outside of normal operations