RE: Placing6 May 2020 15:49
I work in the insurance industry. I just want to take issue with what a policy intends being of any relevance to what it actually says. If a policy is not intended to cover pandemics then it needs to state that in such a way as will hold up in a court of law. The wording that keeps being reported about notifiable diseases, local authorities, denial of access to premises etc all seems self-evidently to be met by the current circumstance. I'm not a wordings expert, nor a legal expert and I haven't seen any of the actual contracts so this i just an uninformed opinion BUT if you want to include those circumstances but exclude pandemics then you need a wording that does that. If people are fast and loose with their wordings then they are going to reap what they sow. The insurance industry keeps going bust or almost going bust on a regular basis (Savings & Loans, LMX spiral, WTC, Katrina, Global Financial Crisis) but manages to survive. When things go pear-shaped, rates go up and new entrants come in to make money. It's simple supply & demand - and greedy capitalism. Finally, if a company wants to sell itself on having simple, clear policy wordings then if it fails to stand by them then I struggle to see how the reputational damage might not be fatal.