JOHN BAKER INSURANCE -how good are they?

[jrandom]

STFU... John Baker... Star... Jetboy... AON... misleading...

Y'know, Oscar, I think the situation has been very well clarified now. jetboy might not be the best at explaining things, but I'm inclined to forgive him for that shortcoming.

I'm starting to suspect you're just angry because Tim won't tell you where he gets his hair gel...

[Oscar]

Until recently I worked for Lighthouse in Albany of which the owners, last Sept. sold 51% to ACIL. If I was still there and was asked who I worked for, I would have answered, "Lighthouse". So no conflict there. ACIL own several companies in the South Pacific and are a large corporation.

You realise how that works, and I realise how that works, but isn't it just the slightest bit misleading?

Now I'm being accused of being misleading for stating a fact - John Baker owns Star. If Tim had of been upfront in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem.

[Oscar]

Y'know, Oscar, I think the situation has been very well clarified now. jetboy might not be the best at explaining things, but I'm inclined to forgive him for that shortcoming.

I'm starting to suspect you're just angry because Tim won't tell you where he gets his hair gel...

I see the mod removed my answer to this (haven't they got anything better to do), whereupon I agreed that the situation is clarified.

[Padmei]

Man this has been good. Is there a special features link which shows the deleted scenes & bloopers?

[Hailwood]

So Oscar which insurance company do you work for?

[Oscar]

So Oscar which insurance company do you work for?

How is that relevant?
I'm not selling anything.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Dan sure its not rocket science but try and appreciate that what the companies office states is not always the best way to understand the formation of a company. I am surprsed you quote my post so passionately! It is not uncommon to come across for example a trustee company with several directors and shareholders without a single mention of the person who has a 51% stake in the company. I came across a sort of similar one today and it took up the majority of my day working through. Sometimes people like to keep themselves 'distant' from their organization for a myriad of reasons and if I really went into the details of this group I would loose you in about 20 minutes! No offense mate but things are not always what they seem. Now stop quoting me and bring me my scotch !

ps: I can see my thread has gone completely off topic, why is there so much tension between people on this site? why not sort out your petty differences like men, face to face...sigh.

[jrandom]

Dan sure its not rocket science but try and appreciate that what the companies office states is not always the best way to understand the formation of a company. I am surprsed you quote my post so passionately! It is not uncommon to come across for example a trustee company with several directors and shareholders without a single mention of the person who has a 51% stake in the company.

I'm well aware of how trusts and individual or corporate trustees work. Don't presume that I don't know anything about the subject just because I don't fill out forms for a living.



In this case, the shares were owned by an individual and a trustee company. That usually means that they're both acting as trustees.

The trust deed governing their actions as shareholders in trust isn't published by the Companies Office, of course, but when the only individual trustee shareholder happens to be the guy the company's named after and is also the sole director of the company, one starts to draw inferences...



Of course, the vital missing piece of information in this case was the fact that the company that we're actually dealing with is not incorporated as John Baker Anything Limited. When one has insufficient data, one tends to draw inadequate conclusions.

No offense mate but things are not always what they seem.

I find your supercilious, condescending tone annoying, particularly when you're not actually offering any information or analysis of value but are just telling people to shut up because they don't know what they're talking about.

You haven't actually written anything in this thread that advanced anyone's understanding of the structure or ownership of the underwriting agents and insurance brokers in question.

Now stop quoting me and bring me my scotch !

Yes, I'd really better get around there with it, hadn't I!

why is there so much tension between people on this site? why not sort out your petty differences like men, face to face...sigh.

There's tension because we're mostly a bunch of arrogant wankers who don't mind pointing that fact out to each other, and, generally speaking, things do get sorted out face-to-face when necessary. Doesn't stop public discussion from happening, though. That's what the forum's here for.

Also, I don't think an in-depth examination of who owns and controls the insurance brokers in question is in any way off topic for this thread.

[Cr1MiNaL]

I'm well aware of how trusts and individual or corporate trustees work. Don't presume that I don't know anything about the subject just because I don't fill out forms for a living.

I'm not inferring, I know better than that. I was merely basing my comments on your sole faith in the companies office website. If you say you are rightly experienced in the matter you would not have even gone there.

In this case, the shares were owned by an individual and a trustee company. That usually means that they're both acting as trustees.

Yes, but what you can't see on the website and I'll put 10 bucks where my mouth is that the trustee company is professional.

The trust deed governing their actions as shareholders in trust isn't published by the Companies Office, of course, but when the only individual trustee shareholder happens to be the guy the company's named after and is also the sole director of the company, one starts to draw inferences...

And therein lies the problem with assuming. Don't assume what you don't know. Thats like 101 of anything under the planet.

Of course, the vital missing piece of information in this case was the fact that the company that we're actually dealing with is not incorporated as John Baker Anything Limited.

And this was just as I had suspected in the first place and if you re-read my post I am subtly implying that the formation would have been left as is for tax/operational benefits, and there would be a lot more to it 'behind the scenes'. Not very uncommon as you would of cause know already. (?)

I find your supercilious, condescending tone annoying, particularly when you're not actually offering any information or analysis of value but are just telling people to shut up because they don't know what they're talking about.

I get like that when I actually know what I am talking about for a change. I can't bother to type to gain wank cred and hence I refrain from too much debate, but when you come around with the scotch I promise to be more cooperative after a few drinks.

Also, I don't think an in-depth examination of who owns and controls the insurance brokers in question is in any way off topic for this thread.

Actually it is. I was not interested in who Tim's employer was. I have access to all that information should I require it. I wanted to know about JBI's claims experiences.

[jrandom]

I'll put 10 bucks where my mouth is that the trustee company is professional.

Of course it's professional. And its directors will be John Baker's solicitors, acting under his instruction. I'll put 10 bucks on that.

I get like that when I actually know what I am talking about for a change.

Best to stick to talking about stuff that you don't know much about, then, or you'll start making everyone's head within a 10m radius explode with general annoyance.

I wanted to know about JBI's claims experiences.

Did I mention yet that I can attest that they're awesome in that respect?

Of course, so are Kiwibike.

To be honest, I think that choosing a bike insurance broker is really more a matter of whether one gets on better with Tim or Dave.

Me, I find Tim downright scary...

[Cr1MiNaL]

Yes, I think I'll stick to things I don't know jack about, might I draw your attention to some of my more popular threads ?

[Number One]

Im with state.

1 - $345 full insurance 1 year
2 - $350 excess
3 - $500 excess for any other rider.
4 - $7000 full comprehensive insurance.

I never had insurance before, I am on my learners.

cant beat that I was totally shocked and asked if they had made a mistake

State are effing wankers! I would never ever again insure anything with them.

Nice to see this thread too as I am in the market for some insurance myself so will definitely be checking JBI out.

[jrandom]

Yes, I think I'll stick to things I don't know jack about...

You're much more lovable in that mode bro.

[Edbear]

State are effing wankers! I would never ever again insure anything with them.

Nice to see this thread too as I am in the market for some insurance myself so will definitely be checking JBI out.

I can heartily recommend Tim, especially in my current position, ie: out of work, he has been very accomodating, and I hope to be gainfully employed again very shortly!

Re': State, I guess it shows that every case is different and while you may have had a bad experience with them, we have had all bar our bike cover with State since Adam was in short pants, and have had nothing but the best service and prices from them! Go figure!

[yod]

was very impressed with AMI

paid me out inside 3 days for gear and bike and it would have been quicker if the bike shop had been quicker doing their thing

rates were reasonable too