Setanta Insurance

BuffyBot

Indeed, and that particular dead horse has been flogged enough folks

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mercfisher

Henry I think some guys on here see things through "brokers glasses" fact is they had liquidity problems in January and in February and in March and finally because of liquidity the went into liquidation in April, its a natural enough process ...they said that they would not take on any renewals or new underwritings after 24th of January because of liquidity no doubt,,,,yet our Irish brokers managed to deal with a company after this date , take money and sell what is worthless insurance and peteb2 thinks this is normal, come on lads a bit of reality here, write to your broker and demand a refund if you got insurance from them after 24th January give them 5 working days to refund you and log your complaint with the Consumer Association.

LostArt

if you got insurance from a broker after Jan 24th you will get no refund, if you got insurance after March 12th you may have a case. Setanta officially stopped renewals from March 12th.

peteb2

mercfisher wrote: »

Henry I think some guys on here see things through "brokers glasses" fact is they had liquidity problems in January and in February and in March and finally because of liquidity the went into liquidation in April, its a natural enough process ...they said that they would not take on any renewals or new underwritings after 24th of January because of liquidity no doubt,,,,yet our Irish brokers managed to deal with a company after this date , take money and sell what is worthless insurance and peteb2 thinks this is normal, come on lads a bit of reality here, write to your broker and demand a refund if you got insurance from them after 24th January give them 5 working days to refund you and log your complaint with the Consumer Association.

Yet again another incorrect assumption. A withdrawal from an unprofitable line of business is common place insurance. Without a requirement to liquidate a company.

Your broker wont refund any premium paid after January 24th. That belongs to the liquidator.

Consumer association has no power so consider it a waste of time and paper.

peteb2

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Then the brokers should have advised their clients not to accept these.

On what basis?

Henry Ford III

My interest concerns the quality (or lack of quality) of the advice provided by Brokers regarding renewals with Setanta.

I don't think it's credible for Brokers to just shrug their shoulders and claim that they knew nothing. They should have known. Their job involves giving best advice on product and provider after all.

peteb2

Henry Ford III wrote: »

My interest concerns the quality (or lack of quality) of the advice provided by Brokers regarding renewals with Setanta.

I don't think it's credible for Brokers to just shrug their shoulders and claim that they knew nothing. They should have known. Their job involves giving best advice on product and provider after all.

Here we go again. Do I really have to say orderly withdrawal of the market again? ? Product was fine as was provider based on the information to hand.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Henry Ford III

peteb2 wrote: »

Here we go again. Do I really have to say orderly withdrawal of the market again? ? Product was fine as was provider based on the information to hand.

That would be fine had it been so, but it wasn't. They went bust.

The product therefore wasn't fine, and nor was the advice to renew with them.

peteb2

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That would be fine had it been so, but it wasn't. They went bust.

The product therefore wasn't fine, and nor was the advice to renew with them.

And here we go in a circle yet again.

What was wrong with the product? And who knew they go bust? You think for the all the overtime involved in sorting the mess out that broker would have suggested renewing as opposed to moving? I don't think so.

rayfitzharris

Hi, just thinking out loud here, maybe someone of a legal background can comment; But does your transaction with a broker represent a contract with a Professional, engaged by you to select an insurance product suitable for your needs? The brokers after all are the experts in this field and so are best placed to offer you the less knowledgable customer professional advice in this area.

I believe they issue a letter stating why they selected the particular insurance product to fit your needs. I'd assume they would take into account the insurers ability to meet claims as a most basic requirement. But I don't know if this is a legal or regulatory requirement. I suspect it is as I can't see them volunteering this statement (and stationary) unless compelled to do so.

I'm wondering if this failure represents Professional Negligence under this contract with your broker?

Especially in light of the fact that they and even the media knew back in January that this whole pyramid scheme was collapsing.
(No new money in = no money for payouts) and couldn't be bothered to even inform their clients, the people they were earning commission on.

I believe that Brokers do constitute Professionals. This lecture by solicitor Patrick Mullins seems to support this assertion: can't post URL
So search MLB dot ie for professional negligence
MLB dot ie /info_prof_negligence

I'd love to hear from anyone of a legal background if this would be an angle to pursue in trying to get brokers to refund premiums and commission unfairly earned?

mercfisher

Pete the problem with the product was that it didn't do as it said on the tin. Brokers have a duty of care and through greed or stupidity didn't give the advice that they charged for, I spoke to a solicitor today who advised that my broker failed as a professional in the advise which he gave and Im very happy with what the solicitor said "BROKER should not have given advise to use Setanta after 24th Jan" end of story "and certainly should not have taken money from me after this date".
I really don't want a merry go round here so I won't post on this again but please don't say brokers didn't know, say brokers didn't care most likely fast buck and shaft everyone attitude!

Corvo

mercfisher wrote: »

Pete the problem with the product was that it didn't do as it said on the tin. Brokers have a duty of care and through greed or stupidity didn't give the advice that they charged for, I spoke to a solicitor today who advised that my broker failed as a professional in the advise which he gave and Im very happy with what the solicitor said "BROKER should not have given advise to use Setanta after 24th Jan" end of story "and certainly should not have taken money from me after this date".
I really don't want a merry go round here so I won't post on this again but please don't say brokers didn't know, say brokers didn't care most likely fast buck and shaft everyone attitude!

How can you say they didn't care? Most brokers had to pay huge amount of overtime to staff in order to try and organise emergency cover, suffered any amount of delays and backlogs, had a plethora of angry customers to deal with on a sudden basis on the 17th of April.

How can you actually believe a broker would want that?

To be honest - all this "they didn't care and were just looking to make a quick buck" attitude you keep rambling on about sounds like a person who has had a previous bad experience within the insurance industry like an unpaid claim or the like, and you seem to be on some tirade to point the finger at the broker constantly.

Henry Ford III

Corvo wrote: »

How can you say they didn't care? Most brokers had to pay huge amount of overtime to staff in order to try and organise emergency cover, suffered any amount of delays and backlogs, had a plethora of angry customers to deal with on a sudden basis on the 17th of April.

How can you actually believe a broker would want that?

To be honest - all this "they didn't care and were just looking to make a quick buck" attitude you keep rambling on about sounds like a person who has had a previous bad experience within the insurance industry like an unpaid claim or the like, and you seem to be on some tirade to point the finger at the broker constantly.

Perhaps they were just incompetant?

BuffyBot

It's almost like I've been talking to myself. Trust me, I wasn't.

If I have to start taking action against, what I assume, are fully functional adults it's going to be swift. Do not say there was no warning.

peteb2

mercfisher wrote: »

Pete the problem with the product was that it didn't do as it said on the tin. Brokers have a duty of care and through greed or stupidity didn't give the advice that they charged for, I spoke to a solicitor today who advised that my broker failed as a professional in the advise which he gave and Im very happy with what the solicitor said "BROKER should not have given advise to use Setanta after 24th Jan" end of story "and certainly should not have taken money from me after this date".
I really don't want a merry go round here so I won't post on this again but please don't say brokers didn't know, say brokers didn't care most likely fast buck and shaft everyone attitude!

As I said for the amount that will end up getting paid out in overtime no broker would have advised going ahead if they knew. Setanta didnt pay any more commission than anyone else in the market. Their products was better than most in terms of benefits. And as mentioned before if offered Setanta for 300 or Allianz for example for 500 what would they go for? In fact brokers would have made more money by saying to go with the higher price

mercfisher

Me thinks the brokers protest too much !! for the record, I've never had a problem with an insurance company or broker for the record up to 24th Jan and the Setanta fiasco...your comment is grossly misleading and unfair and confirms what i've said about brokers already, unprofessional out to make a quick buck and take advantage of a commercial situation which shafted punters, I don't see the benefit of dealing with a broker at all after this.
This was in no way sudden, my solicitor told me that it was rumoured in early January with a statement on 24th January so why didn't the brokers get ready for the fallout, they buried their heads in the sand with pockets full of our money, sudden my a**e.

peteb2

My comment? How so? What is misleading? I've said that it would have been more profitable for brokers to sell you a more expensive policy and say that Setanta were going bust (when they were and would have been considered quite defamatory). Than to sell Setanta, wait for it to go bust and then have staff in for two weeks flat out to sort the problem for about €23 per €350 policy when the overtime incurred will be well in excess that?

So if you want a proper discussion, stick around. If you want an unfounded rant, after hours is that way!

---

>

Its not like the legal profession has covered itself in glory in the last few years and if you are talking about making a quick buck, well I'm sure your solicitor knows all about that.

Your solicitor heard a rumour? I hear a lot of rumours. Doesn't mean they are true. Your solicitor also should know the legal ramifications of rumours! I'll say it again - it is possible to conduct an orderly wind-down of an unprofitable line of business without a company ending up in liquidation.

BuffyBot

Grand, so. If a few people insist of pulling each others hair they can do so via PM.