Do these companies have no shame?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8603...
Injured soldier carries Carling cup onto the pitch and now insurance company want to deny him his payout for being partly paralysed
Injured soldier carries Carling cup onto the pitch and now insurance company want to deny him his payout for being partly paralysed
Insurance companies' first and main loyalty is to their shareholders imo.
There's a common misconception that persoanl injury damages reflect some generous compensation for the terrile thing which happened. In fact it's almost entirely made up of loss of earnings and future care needs, and a small % for 'loss of amenity', such as his paralysis and, I suspect, pain.
It does read they're reviewing it, not refusing it though.
There's a common misconception that persoanl injury damages reflect some generous compensation for the terrile thing which happened. In fact it's almost entirely made up of loss of earnings and future care needs, and a small % for 'loss of amenity', such as his paralysis and, I suspect, pain.
It does read they're reviewing it, not refusing it though.
Oakey said:
If you ever needed proof that insurance companies will stoop to whatever levels they can in order to not pay out, here it is
+1.Insurance is a dirty business... Can you imagine having a job in which you spend your day figuring out ways to not pay for grandmothers disabilities or how to take money from injured solders?
I wonder how this works?
Do people working for insurers sit at home watching the television in the evening, see someone slightly disabled walking and then go and check to see if their lot are dealing with them.
You can imagine them punching the air in triumph when they realised they had possibly 'got one' they could avoid paying out for.
Do people working for insurers sit at home watching the television in the evening, see someone slightly disabled walking and then go and check to see if their lot are dealing with them.
You can imagine them punching the air in triumph when they realised they had possibly 'got one' they could avoid paying out for.
jimothy said:
Anyone seen Saw VI?
i was just thinking that too!you need to be careful who you refuse!
as they seem to be an Army approved, or at least military specialist, it won't take much for a boycott to be launched, especially with facebook groups etc.
i wouldn't mind having a 5-er on the existence of a FB group already
Nickyboy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8603...
Injured soldier carries Carling cup onto the pitch and now insurance company want to deny him his payout for being partly paralysed
They are Chinese owned, why would they give a hoot about a disabled squaddie.Injured soldier carries Carling cup onto the pitch and now insurance company want to deny him his payout for being partly paralysed
Sticks. said:
Insurance companies' first and main loyalty is to their shareholders imo.
Even on that premise, they've failed. The company is being portrayed in a very poor light, in the national media, all for the sake of £25k. Companies spend millions on marketing and then throw it all away over something like this. Morality aside, it's still a monumental own goal from a business perspective. Were I a shareholder, I'd be pissed...Sticks. said:
Insurance companies' first and main loyalty is to their shareholders imo.
There's a common misconception that persoanl injury damages reflect some generous compensation for the terrile thing which happened. In fact it's almost entirely made up of loss of earnings and future care needs, and a small % for 'loss of amenity', such as his paralysis and, I suspect, pain.
It does read they're reviewing it, not refusing it though.
Correct, they are there to reduce the cost of your risk to a reasonable level based on the law of averages, and unfortunately quite a few people continually try to shaft them, with result that they must either increase premiums, decline the risk, stick to the absolute letter of the policy cover. It's a business like any other, not a soft hearted charity. Having said that, of course good public relations are important to any company.There's a common misconception that persoanl injury damages reflect some generous compensation for the terrile thing which happened. In fact it's almost entirely made up of loss of earnings and future care needs, and a small % for 'loss of amenity', such as his paralysis and, I suspect, pain.
It does read they're reviewing it, not refusing it though.
NTDWM Taken from Abacus' website
PRESS RELEASE 5th April 2010
Private David Tatlock
Following several stories in the media relating to the position of Abacus Limited in an on
going Personal Accident Insurance claim by Private David Tatlock, Abacus would like to
set the record straight.
The stories emanate from an article published in the News Of The World on Sunday 4th
April 2010 written by Paul McNamara, which states that Abacus has stopped a payment of
£25,000 and that someone from Abacus called Headley Court, the Defence Medical
Rehabilitation Centre, to tell them that this was the case. Both assertions are untrue and
are a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Private Tatlock has already received a payment in excess of £100,000 through his
Personal Accident Policy for the injuries he sustained and, because there appears to be a
worsening of the effects, the case remains open. Far from his claim being declined, a
request has been made by AXA (the underwriters of the policy) for an independent medical
assessment to establish whether a further payment is due.
This request was indeed made through Private Tatlock’s Social Worker based at Headley
Court, but by AXA, not Abacus.
Mr McNamara has placed overt emphasis on a misunderstanding of the situation by his
‘source’ within Headley Court, which could have been rectified and clarified if there had
been a willingness to be more thorough when checking the facts.
The desire to sensationalise this story has meant that Private Tatlock has been subjected
to additional and unnecessary stress. An obligation clearly rests with AXA and Abacus to
ensure that their customer receives what is due under the terms of a policy. It is
unfortunate that the act of trying to establish whether a further payment is due should lead
to such a wild misrepresentation.
A representative of Abacus made contact with Paul McNamara on Saturday 3rd April 2010
to explain the facts but Mr McNamara chose to submit his story with no further
independent checking of the facts offered. If he had done so the headlines would have
been markedly different.
In view of the negative effect on the reputation of a company held in high regard within the
military, Abacus Limited will be referring the case to the Press Complaints Commission.
Abacus Limited
Queen Isabelle House
Kingsclere Park
Kingsclere
Newbury
Berkshire
PRESS RELEASE 5th April 2010
Private David Tatlock
Following several stories in the media relating to the position of Abacus Limited in an on
going Personal Accident Insurance claim by Private David Tatlock, Abacus would like to
set the record straight.
The stories emanate from an article published in the News Of The World on Sunday 4th
April 2010 written by Paul McNamara, which states that Abacus has stopped a payment of
£25,000 and that someone from Abacus called Headley Court, the Defence Medical
Rehabilitation Centre, to tell them that this was the case. Both assertions are untrue and
are a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Private Tatlock has already received a payment in excess of £100,000 through his
Personal Accident Policy for the injuries he sustained and, because there appears to be a
worsening of the effects, the case remains open. Far from his claim being declined, a
request has been made by AXA (the underwriters of the policy) for an independent medical
assessment to establish whether a further payment is due.
This request was indeed made through Private Tatlock’s Social Worker based at Headley
Court, but by AXA, not Abacus.
Mr McNamara has placed overt emphasis on a misunderstanding of the situation by his
‘source’ within Headley Court, which could have been rectified and clarified if there had
been a willingness to be more thorough when checking the facts.
The desire to sensationalise this story has meant that Private Tatlock has been subjected
to additional and unnecessary stress. An obligation clearly rests with AXA and Abacus to
ensure that their customer receives what is due under the terms of a policy. It is
unfortunate that the act of trying to establish whether a further payment is due should lead
to such a wild misrepresentation.
A representative of Abacus made contact with Paul McNamara on Saturday 3rd April 2010
to explain the facts but Mr McNamara chose to submit his story with no further
independent checking of the facts offered. If he had done so the headlines would have
been markedly different.
In view of the negative effect on the reputation of a company held in high regard within the
military, Abacus Limited will be referring the case to the Press Complaints Commission.
Abacus Limited
Queen Isabelle House
Kingsclere Park
Kingsclere
Newbury
Berkshire
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff