WNS (Holdings) Limited (WNS), a leading provider of global Business Process Management (BPM) services, today announced that it has been named a ‘Leader’ in the 2018 Everest Group PEAK Matrix™ Assessment Report in the Property & Casualty (P&C) Insurance BPO Service Provider Landscape. ‘Leaders’ were assessed highly for both their impact on the market, and for having the vision and capability to deliver services successfully.
“We are delighted to be recognized as a ‘Leader’ in the P&C Insurance BPM space for the fourth year in a row,” said Keshav R. Murugesh, Group CEO, WNS. “WNS’ differentiated positioning in the insurance space stems from having the right combination of deep domain expertise, technology-enabled offerings, advanced analytics, and client-centric focus. Today, WNS has several end-to-end BPM relationships with global leaders in P&C insurance, and the largest actuarial practice in the BPM industry. These capabilities uniquely position us to transform our clients core business processes and help them to better compete.”
“WNS continues in its position as one of the key service providers in the P&C Insurance BPO domain, fortified through domain expertise, depth and breadth of services, and a consistent delivery record. Further, its global delivery model, leverage of analytics and automation, and capabilities spanning across the judgment-intensive processes, such as actuarial and underwriting, beyond the transactional ones, allow it to cater to the evolving needs of the insurers,” said Skand Bhargava, Practice Director, Everest Group.
The Everest Group report highlights WNS’ comprehensive coverage of the P&C Insurance value chain. The company was also cited for its capabilities across P&C insurance service lines, global scope of operations covering all major markets, and for its dedicated analytics, actuarial, and automation delivery teams. Buyers identified domain expertise, depth and breadth of services and a consistent delivery record as key strengths for WNS.
WNS delivers end-to-end solutions to the P&C insurance industry including claims management, policy administration, actuarial, risk management, fraud and compliance. Today, WNS serves over 30 global clients with a dedicated team of over 2,500 insurance professionals and solutions leveraging embedded analytics and state-of-the-art technologies including proprietary platforms, RPA, machine learning, and artificial intelligence.
About WNS
WNS (Holdings) Limited (WNS), is a leading global business process management company. WNS offers business value to 350+ global clients by combining operational excellence with deep domain expertise in key industry verticals including Travel, Insurance, Banking and Financial Services, Manufacturing, Retail and Consumer Packaged Goods, Shipping and Logistics, Healthcare and Utilities. WNS delivers an entire spectrum of business process management services such as finance and accounting, customer interaction services, technology solutions, research and analytics and industry specific back office and front office processes. As of March 31, 2018, WNS had 36,540 professionals across 54 delivery centers worldwide including China, Costa Rica, India, Philippines, Poland, Romania, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. For more information, visit www.wns.com.
Safe Harbor Provision
This document includes information which may constitute forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the accuracy of which are necessarily subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions as to future events. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied are discussed in our most recent Form 20-F and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. WNS undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
FILE PHOTO: Logo of insurer Axa is seen at the entrance of the company's headquarters in Brussels Thomson Reuters PARIS (Reuters) - BlaBlaCar, whose amateur chauffeurs share costs with passengers on long-distance journeys, and AXA said on Tuesday that they had launched a new car insurance product.
The product, which will be launched initially in France, will offer insurance protection for drivers that use the BlaBlaCar service, with no excess charged for damage that may occur whilst carpooling.
BlaBlaCar, which was founded in Paris in 2006, describes itself as the world's largest carpooling community.
BlaBlaCar is among several new firms challenging traditional carmakers and transport companies alike.
Such companies include the likes of Uber [UBER.UL] and Avis-owned ZipCar, which offer access to self-drive vehicle fleets for as little as an hour at a time.
The home block of vines at Gibbston Valley Winery, Central Otago New Zealand Photo: Gibbston Valley Winery
With no pre-existing medical conditions and aged 65 or under, you can expect to pay about $400 for an annual travel insurance policy with no extras.
That's about three times what the same traveller might pay for a policy with the same level of cover for a two-week trip to Indonesia or New Zealand.
Therefore you might think that any less than three overseas trips per year and annual cover makes no sense, but it's not that simple.
One of the best reasons to buy an annual policy is peace of mind, wherever your travels take you.
If you're making a trip to visit friends in another city or taking a long weekend wine country escape, you wouldn't buy travel insurance for that alone, yet an annual travel insurance policy could cover you for trip cancellation, vehicle excess on a hire car and loss or damage to your possessions.
Not every traveller buys travel insurance if they're cruising in Australian waters, but they should – and again, an annual policy means you're covered.
An overhaul of insurance industry rules has taken a step forward with Commerce Minister Kris Faafoi inviting submissions from the public on what needs to change.
But O'Cromtha, one of a number of Tower policyholders, locked in a court battle to get his earthquake-damaged Christchurch home repaired, said there were some glaring omissions in the areas the discussion paper covered.
"I didn't expect to be sitting in my earthquake-damaged house seven years after the original trigger event," he said. "I still haven't got to the court."
READ MORE* Life insurers spend $18 million on overseas trips* Rob Stock: Door to insurance heaven, or hell?* Insurers' secret spy powers* Insurance advisers chasing 230 per cent commissions
O'Cromtha fears Faafoi's consultation will be window-dressing unless access to timely justice is addressed.
But he said the Government was conflicted as owner of EQC and Southern Response.
He estimated there were currently around $1 billion of claims in front of the courts, with just two judges handling the majority of the cases.
O'Cromtha also called on the Government to review the legal onus for individual policyholders to prove they have a claim.
People will have until July 13 to have their say on insurers.
123rf
People will have until July 13 to have their say on insurers.
Policyholders finding themselves in a fight with insurers often lacked the resources to do it, forcing them to settle.
"It's ridiculous. We really needed an independent regulator for insurers that has teeth, and can impose sanctions," O'Cromtha said.
Releasing the discussion paper, Faafoi said people's experiences following the Christchurch earthquakes and a Royal Commission in Australia had highlighted "the need to look at whether greater regulation of insurer conduct is required".
In response to O'Cromtha, Faafoi said the consultation was an opportunity for the public to raise their all their concerns.
Faafoi said there were "significant problems" with insurance contract law that were undermining the effectiveness of insurance, and affecting people who did not receive the support they expected from their policies.
It's not just house and car insurance under the spotlight.
"I have heard, for example, that consumers are sometimes not covered for losses or unable to claim for important needs like health treatment because they innocently did not disclose seemingly unrelated matters to the insurer," he said.
"This is really tough for people who genuinely believe they have met their requirements and are later unable to rely on benefits of insurance. Onerous disclosure requirements are one of the issues we need to consider and, I hope, an issue that will be addressed in feedback from submitters."
Spotlight on four areas
There are four core areas of possible reform raised the discussion paper issued by Faafoi on Tuesday.
The first is to bring insurance policies under the Fair Trading Act.
Currently, insurance contracts are carved out of some aspects of the act, meaning they can contain "unfair" contract terms.
The second is to address the unfair disclosure rules, which it is easy for ordinary people to trip over.
People taking out insurance have a duty to tell an insurer everything that would be "material" to a "prudent underwriter".
Anyone who fails to do so, can have their policy torn up, and a claim declined, which is unfair as most people have no idea what a prudent underwriter considers to be material when deciding whether to issue a policy, and what premiums to charge.
Someone who accidentally fails to disclose something, can innocently pay premiums for years, and only find out at claims time that they have paid their money for nothing.
"The duty to interpret what is meant by material in influencing the judgement of a prudent insurer is overly onerous on the consumer," this discussion document says.
It's something the Insurance Ombudsman Karen Stevens has campaigned on for more than a decade.
Questions are also being asked about whether insurers are too lightly regulated.
The IMF, in its last review of New Zealand, said regulation of the conduct of insurers was "inadequate".
The discussion paper also asks for any evidence that insurance intermediaries like banks and insurance advisers are behaving badly, and whether sales incentives like high up-front commissions, which can reach more than 200 per cent of first year's premium, are causing poor outcomes.
Just last week, the Financial Markets Authority revealed that insurance companies had paid $18 million to take insurance advisers on trips overseas in a two-year period, which their clients may not have been aware of.
Insurers are not required to publish figures of the number of claims they turn down, and why.
An investigation by ASIC in Australia found very different claims-paying records from insurers, but no such data has been published in New Zealand.
There may also be competition issues that are resulting in people paying excessive prices for insurance.
Consumers found it hard to compare prices and policies, MBIE said.
Faafoi wants to know what can be done to change this. Overseas, minimum policy conditions are imposed on some kinds of policies, but New Zealand tech companies have struggled to do online comparison engines, as insurers have blocked their efforts by refusing to share their pricing.
The deadline for submissions on the discussion paper is July 13.
Proposals for law change will be with the minister by March next year.
A consumer watchdog has called for New Zealand's regulators to take a closer look at insurance products sold via car dealers in the wake of an Australian review which has forced insurers to pay back millions to customers.
However, the bodies which represent insurers and motor vehicle dealers believe there are no problems here.
Jessica Wilson, head of research at Consumer New Zealand, said people who bought cars were regularly offered insurance and warranty products which may provide very little value.
"You can end-up paying for cover you're already entitled to by law."
While other products, such as payment protection insurance, often came with restrictive terms and conditions, which limited the consumer's ability to make a claim, Wilson said.
You can end-up paying for cover you're already entitled to by law.
SHARE THIS QUOTE:
"We're concerned these products continue to be sold with misleading information about the cover they offer and we'd like to see regulators take a closer look at this market."
In 2016 the Australian Securities and Investment Commission released three reports covering its review of the sale of add-on insurance through car dealers, which found that the insurance was expensive, of poor value and provided consumers very little or no benefit.
Since then five insurers have said they would pay back more than A$120 million ($131m) to consumers.
The products include insurance for tyre and rim, warranty, loan protection and guaranteed asset protection.
Greig Epps, industry relationship manager at the Motor Trade Association said those sorts of polices were sold in New Zealand via car dealers but the regulatory environment here might mean the problems found in Australia did not exist here.
"Recent revisions to the Consumer Credit Contracts and Finance Act (CCCFA) and changes brought in under the Responsible Lending Code mean that all finance and insurance selling must meet the customer's requirements," Epps said.
"So selling F&I products in NZ in a way that does not meet that requirement will be 'illegal' or 'non-compliant'.
"In light of this regulatory environment, it may be that the problems found in Australia do not exist here or may be more difficult to manifest here on a wide scale."
Epps said the car dealer was often simply an "intermediary" for the insurance company and consumers also needed to take responsibility.
"MTA advises its vehicle trader members to be as clear as possible about these products, there is also a need for customers to have a good understanding of their own current insurance coverage and determine whether they need any further insurance or warranty products."
Tim Grafton, chief executive of the Insurance Council, said: "ICNZ has not been advised by either regulators or its members of the sale of insurance that is not fit for purpose.
"ICNZ requires that its members do not bring the insurance sector into disrepute."
Suncorp, one of the Australian insurers, who will pay back A$17.2m to customers also offers insurance in New Zealand via Vero.
Its New Zealand spokeswoman said Suncorp did not sell similar products through car dealers in New Zealand.
New Zealand regulators have yet to look into the add-on insurance market.
An FMA spokesman said: "We have not been reviewing the practices around car loan insurance and to date have not received any complaints in this area.
"While all insurance services in New Zealand are subject to the fair dealing rules under the Financial Markets Conduct Act, insurers are not licensed by the FMA, which limits our remit."
The spokesman said its initial focus on insurance had been on sales and incentive practices in relation to life insurance, which has longer term consequences for customers and therefore poses a higher-risk.
"We'll continue to consider how we can use our existing powers in relation to general insurance."
A spokesman for the Commerce Commission said it did not have any current investigations into the matters investigated by ASIC.
AAP Delays accounted for 37% of complaints about the National Disability Insurance Agency.
Delays with the national disability insurance scheme are continuing to drive record numbers of complaints about the reform, new figures show.
The latest report on the NDIS, released on Tuesday, shows 4,146 complaints were made to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) in the three months to the end of March.
It is the highest number of complaints received in a single quarter, well above the 3,880 complaints received last quarter when numbers were artificially inflated by the manual entry of earlier data. The number of complaints in the two quarters prior was 2,961 and 1,669 respectively.
By far the most common frustration was with timeliness. Delays accounted for 37% of participant complaints about the NDIA, well above previous levels (28%).
Since its inception, 17,352 complaints have been made about the NDIS, the equivalent of roughly one complaint for every 10 participants with approved plans.
“The NDIA is concerned about the level of complaints it has received,” the report said. “The challenges experienced in implementing the scheme are recognised and work is proceeding on the participant and provider pathway review to address the issues that underlie the complaints.”
Related: NDIS mistakenly posts changes restricting access for autistic children
The nature of the complaints is likely to enliven criticism of the government’s staffing cap on the NDIA. Critics say the cap has hampered the agency’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the scheme.
Earlier this month, a damning ombudsman’s report found people were waiting up to nine months for a review after complaining of errors or inadequacies with their support plan. Some were waiting months for a simple callback from the NDIA, the ombudsman found.
Tuesday’s report also shows alarming gaps affecting those who are already receiving state and territory disability support services. About 2,430 of those already receiving support did not meet NDIS access criteria. Another 13,625 could either not be reached, rejected an opportunity to enter the scheme, or withdrew their request for NDIS support.
Advocacy groups have long warned that such individuals could be left without support, as state and territory governments withdraw services in the expectation they will be replaced by the NDIS.
In a statement the NDIA chief executive, Robert De Luca, said: “The NDIA will continue to proactively work with the states and territory governments to bring eligible people into the NDIS in future quarters.”
More broadly, the report shows about 160,000 people are receiving support through the NDIS, including 151,970 people with approved plans and 10,253 children receiving early intervention services.
About 45,000 had not previously received any government-funded support.
“These figures show that under the NDIS, more and more Australians with disability are receiving better and more effective support and assistance than ever have before,” De Luca said.
Satisfaction with the planning process – when an individual’s support needs are determined and funded – remained steady, with 84% rating it as good or very good.
De Luca said the scheme was having a positive impact. About 90% of parents or carers with young children said the scheme had helped with their child’s development and access to school services. About three-quarters of those aged 25 and over said the NDIS had helped them with daily living activities.
“These strong outcomes demonstrate the NDIS is already delivering on its goals to increase Australians with disability’s independence and participation in the community,” De Luca said.
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Fund managers who perform poorly face being locked out of Australia’s A$2.6 trillion ($1.96 trillion) pension industry if recommendations from the government’s top economic advisory body are implemented.
The Productivity Commission said in a report on Tuesday that a shortlist of up to 10 strong-performing pension products, chosen by an independent panel, should be presented to workers from which to choose when they enter the workforce.
If adopted, the Commission’s model would replace a system whereby the employer chooses a fund for any worker who does not nominate a preference, regardless of the product’s performance, fee structure or insurance arrangements.
“Most (fund) members are in funds that deliver good investment returns, but millions of members are in funds that persistently underperform — over one in four funds,” said Karen Chester, the Commission’s deputy chair.
“Over an average member’s working life, being stuck in a poor performing default fund can leave them with almost 40 per cent less to spend in retirement.”The Commission is also reviewing insurance arrangements within pension products, after it found many Australians were paying for “zombie” policies on which they weren’t eligible to claim, especially if they had multiple pension accounts or were not currently employed.
“The chief and costly culprit for such’zombie policies’ is income protection, which can typically be claimed against only one policy and only when members are working,” the Commission said in its report.
Becoming an employer’s nominated fund, known as a default fund, is big business. Australia boasts the third-largest pool of retirement savings in the world, according to OECD data. “SUPER” FUNDS’ INFLOWS GUARANTEEDThe industry enjoys billions of dollars of guaranteed inflows a year, underpinned by a mandatory system where almost one-tenth of a worker’s wage is deposited into a pension fund, known locally as a superannuation or “super” fund to be accessed at retirement.
About 60 percent of those inflows go to default funds, according to Jeff Bresnahan, chairman at research house SuperRatings, because most workers don’t actively research and choose their own fund.
“There will be some funds that have underperformed for some time and are still getting strong flows,” Bresnahan said.
He noted, however, that the Commission’s proposal might not be workable, given it would be difficult to choose the “best 10” products when performance can be cyclical, and funds must also be measured on their fee structures and life insurance arrangements.
The Productivity Commission will hold public hearings next month before finalizing the recommendations it sends to the government for possible implementation.
Pension assets totaled A$2.6 trillion at the end of the December 2017 quarter, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.
Last year, the asset pool grew in size by 10.1 per cent, driven by investment returns and new contributions.
Any move to change the default fund system would likely ignite a new battle between commercial, or retail, funds and the country’s union-backed industry funds.
Industry funds have historically dominated the default market, locking in agreements with some of Australia’s biggest sectors, including manufacturing and education.
Commercial funds, run by the major banks and wealth managers, have lobbied the center-right federal government for employers to be allowed to directly negotiate default arrangements.
Reporting by Jonathan Barrett in Sydney; Editing by Eric Meijer
The number of people in Alberta receiving regular employment insurance benefits declined by more than 26 per cent over the previous year as of March, according to data released Thursday by Statistics Canada.
About 60,100 Albertans received employment insurance benefits in March. Compared to the same period a year earlier, Alberta recorded the fastest year-over-year decline in the number of beneficiaries among all provinces.
That figure was also down 2.4 per cent, or 1,500 recipients, compared to one month earlier in February.
The trend corresponds with changes in the unemployment rate in the province throughout the past year.
Calgary’s unemployment rate was at eight per cent as of April, about 1.5 percentage points higher than the provincial figure. The unemployment rate in Calgary was at 9.2 per cent in April 2017.
Alberta recorded real GDP growth of 4.9 per cent in 2017, following declines of 3.9 per cent in 2015 and 3.6 per cent in 2016, according to Statistics Canada.
A similar decline in employment insurance claims was observed nationally. More than 470,000 Canadians received benefits in March, which was down 14 per cent, or close to 77,000 fewer beneficiaries, from 12 months earlier.
Canada experienced a 1.5 per cent decline in claims from February to March of this year, with 7,300 fewer employment insurance beneficiaries.
I wonder if the perpetrators of this horrific set of actions ponder the price that will eventually be paid for their “insurance” policy. I doubt they care
The Incalculable Cost of InsuranceEditor’s Note:
It is an incomparable honor that on Memorial Day 2018 Canada Free Press is posting the first of Sam Clovis’s columns in Canada Free Press. Sam Clovis, who served 25 years on active duty as a fighter pilot, retired as a Colonel and the Inspector General of NORAD and the United States Space Command. Having served as national co-chair and chief policy advisor for the Trump for President Campaign, and as a policy director during the transition period before serving as Senior White House Advisor to the US Department of Agriculture, Sam speaks to us from rural Iowa, where he remains, in every sense of the image, a fighter pilot.
I am that guy. Yes, I am the individual who put together the Trump Campaign national advisory committee on national security and foreign policy. Yes, I am the one who recruited Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Yes, I have given countless hours of testimony to a four-pack of investigations. And most important of all—not a single shred of evidence has presented itself that would indicate that anyone in the Trump campaign had anything to do with colluding with the Russians. Not one scintilla of credible information, testimony or documentation points in that direction—zero, zip, nada. What has been revealed, however, is that there was a deliberate attempt to spy on the campaign, that there likely efforts to create probable cause for further FISA warrants and the clear indication of gathering—and then leaking of—information that has underpinned classic progressive politics of personal destruction.
Obama’s acolytes
I normally don’t buy into conspiracy theories, but I think in the case of the Obama administration actively working to undermine and destroy the Trump candidacy as insurance against an unlikely Trump victory is starting to take shape. If one is to examine the players involved and the thousands of text messages, memos and emails associated with the probable aggressive attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign, then one may find it easier to believe in this conspiracy ahead of many others. Perhaps the most troubling piece of evidence against the Obama acolytes is the text from the FBI’s director of counterintelligence Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page. He seems convinced that action must be taken to take out “insurance” against any possibility of a Trump victory. Therein lies the mentality of a broad array of actors who violated every precept of decency and duty by blatantly violating their oaths of office and putting power and ideology above the rule of law and deliberate republican governance.
What price was this group willing to pay for this insurance? The ultimate price of their despicable behavior is yet to be tallied, but one can rest assured that the price will be high and the damage done decades in the mending. Along the way, the FBI, the Department of Justice, our intelligence community and the White House apparatus have been tainted—all because of the actions of individuals who lack a moral compass and who do not believe in their obligations to the Constitution of the United States.
Many years ago, I wrote my thesis at the Army War College on how governments decide to take action such as committing armed forces to combat. I studied the decision of the Russians to invade Afghanistan and the Israeli decision to take action in 1980 in Lebanon. As my research evolved, I could not get away from the fact that history is replete with examples of bad decisions being made that have led to catastrophic outcomes. The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, countless decisions related to Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra and the second Gulf War are all examples of senior decision making, where normal checks and balances would be in place, got short-circuited and key players isolated themselves from the appropriate process. They disrupted the normal processes because they knew that if the processes were to be followed, their ideologically driven goals would be unattainable. These miscreants found sycophants who were more than willing to carry out the nefarious plans, and at the end of the day, the government and governance envisioned by our Founding Fathers had a wrecking ball taken to it. In the end, the people of America paid the price.
The cast of characters in this American tragedy is well known
The cast of characters in this American tragedy is well known. John Brennan, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, Susan Rice, National Security Advisor, Samantha Power, Ambassador to the United Nations, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok of the FBI and Valerie Jarrett, advisor to the President—all of these individuals have left DNA along the way during Spygate. All were deeply invested in a Clinton victory and all were deliriously loyal to President Barack Obama. They all knew each other and met often. It appears they chose to orchestrate a multi-pronged effort to destroy a Trump presidency before it even got started. All of their actions were outside the normal deliberative processes that should have checked such actions. If proven, such an abuse of power would be unprecedented in American history.
I have learned a lot about my government as I have progressed through the Mueller investigation and House and Senate inquiries. Most of what I have learned has not been positive and I still owe my attorney a fair amount of money. Such is the price I am paying. My travails, however, are of little consequence. I will get by. What I worry about is the damage these unscrupulous, morally bankrupt individuals have done to the confidence Americans should have in their government. If the people cannot trust the very institutions that should be protecting them against such abuses then who and what should they trust?
I wonder if the perpetrators of this horrific set of actions ponder the price that will eventually be paid for their “insurance” policy. I doubt they care. What I am hoping is that the American people demand justice for those who have been harmed by these actions and that the citizens of this great nation demand of our elected officials that the shadowy attempt to overturn the results of a legitimate election never happens again.
Please SHARE this story as the only way for CFP to beat Facebook anti-Conservative Suppression. Dr. Sam Clovis -- Bio and Archives | Comments
Samuel H. Clovis, Jr., Doctor of Public Administration
Sam Clovis was raised in Kansas and attended the United States Air Force Academy, serving for 25 years on active duty as a fighter pilot. He retired as a Colonel and the Inspector General of NORAD and the United States Space Command.
Upon leaving the service, Sam entered the private sector. He also served as a Fellow at the Homeland Security Institute, contributing in national preparedness and immigration policy. He recently served as a tenured full professor of economics at Morningside College.
Sam has a BS from the Academy, an MBA from Golden Gate University and a doctorate from the University of Alabama. He served as national co-chair and chief policy advisor for the Trump for President Campaign, was a policy director during the transition period and served as the Senior White House Advisor to the US Department of Agriculture. He is married to the former Charlotte Chase of Piketon, OH. He currently lives in rural Iowa.
Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.
Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.-- Follow these instructions on registering:
I am thinking about dispensing with travel insurance when travelling to Europe this year. Instead I would rely on my household “all risks” contents policy and my European Health Insurance Card (Ehic). What catches might there be?
GF, West Yorks
Relying on a raft of provisions that might be available, whether or not there is travel insurance, could expose you to unacceptable risks.
Of course there are travel insurance exclusions, such as those concerning pre-existing medical conditions of the policyholder, close associates or relatives in the event of a cancellation claim. However, the cover does usually pick up big items of expenditure such as repatriation.
You might benefit from paying for at least some of the trip with a credit card. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act makes the organisation that provided the card “jointly and severally liable” for transactions between £100 and £30,000 made with its credit card where there has been misrepresentation or breach of contract.
There are caveats though, which should be checked out.
Atol protection is there for when the travel company collapses or for holidaymakers who find themselves stranded abroad. Check if your holiday is covered via the Civil Aviation Authority website (caa.co.uk).
The “all risks” section, if you have one, on a household contents policy might apply if something is lost or stolen abroad.
For more on the Ehic, go to nhs.uk and find Ehic via the A to Z facility. Check your destination country, as locations differ in what is available. A few don’t accept the card.
“Entitlement” tells you what free care a national in the visited country can expect. This is for UK residents and by no means everything will be covered – mountain rescue in ski resorts, for example, or repatriation. It’s possible that people on cruises are not covered.
A single-trip travel policy for Europe strikes me as a sensible safety net.
A U.S. Army officer based in Anchorage faces federal charges alleging he made false insurance claims for more than four years, using the money to pay down personal debts and expenses like credit cards, multiple vehicles and mortgage loans.
Christopher James DeMure, 40, was charged with one count each of mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering Wednesday. He is accused of defrauding two insurance providers for hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to documents filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Alaska on Wednesday.
DeMure is a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel currently assigned to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. He recently returned to Alaska after a deployment to Afghanistan, where he commanded a task force of roughly 2,200 people, court documents say.
From September 2014 to at least February 2018, DeMure claimed $475,000 from two insurance companies — USAA Federal Savings Bank and American Express — and, of that, was paid out $394,000.
"(He) has spent much of the insurance payout money," federal prosecutors say. The charges allege he spent the money on car loans, credit card bills, mortgage payments and other personal debts and expenses, including paying off a 2016 Chevrolet Suburban and a 2016 Audi A7.
Prosecutors say that DeMure purchased items such as jewelry, clothing and electronics that he later used to file fake insurance claims. DeMure, buying items both online and in stores, would either cancel the online order or physically return the item for a full refund, and then falsely claim that the item had been lost.
DeMure began filing fraudulent claims with USAA Federal Savings Bank in 2014, and in 2015, he started filing false claims with American Express too, prosecutors say. He would file the same claims to both insurance companies.
Evidence provided in support of those false claims was sometimes fraudulent, prosecutors say. In some cases, explanations DeMure made for how the items were lost were "partially or entirely fraudulent," charges say.
USAA Federal Savings Bank withholds a certain amount of an insurance payout until there's proof that the person has replaced the lost item, prosecutors write. Many times, DeMure would buy the replacement item, provide the receipt to the bank, and then return the item, while the bank paid out the remaining money.
Prosecutors say that DeMure's scheme to defraud involved "at least seven" different incidents.
For instance, charges says, in July 2017, DeMure called the Palmer Police Department to report that he had left a red-colored North Face backpack in a Fred Meyer parking lot. Inside were items including an Apple iWatch and jewelry, he told police. He estimated the loss at several thousand dollars.
DeMure filed an insurance claim with American Express, and he submitted a Palmer Police Department report that police said wasn't real. In August 2017, he asked for roughly $13,000 in lost goods from the Palmer incident. In three separate claims, he said that four different bags had been lost or stolen, not one, as he had told Palmer police, prosecutors say.
In fall 2017, American Express notified the FBI that DeMure may be engaging in fraudulent activity.
DeMure was arrested Thursday morning, prosecutors said. He was expected to appear in court Friday.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
This was how I learned all about the Great Divide between medicine and dentistry -- especially in how treatment is paid for, or mostly not paid for, by insurers. Many Americans with serious dental illness find out the same way: sticker shock.
For millions of Americans -- blessed in some measure with good genes and good luck -- dental insurance works pretty well, and they don't think much about it. But people like me learn the hard way that dental insurance isn't insurance at all -- not in the sense of providing significant protection against unexpected or unaffordable costs. My dental coverage from UC-Berkeley, where I have been on the public health and journalism faculties, tops out at $1,500 a year -- and that's considered a decent plan.
Dental policies are more like prepayment plans for a basic level of care. They generally provide full coverage for routine preventive services and charge a small copay for fillings. But coverage is reduced as treatment intensifies. Major work like a crown or a bridge is often covered only at 50 percent; implants generally aren't covered at all.
In many other countries, medical and dental care likewise are segregated systems. The difference is that prices for major procedures in the U.S. are so high they can be out of reach even for middle-class patients. Some people resort to so-called dental tourism, seeking care in countries like Mexico and Spain. Others obtain reduced-cost care in the U.S. from dental schools or line up for free care at occasional pop-up clinics.
Underlying this "insurance" system in the U.S. is a broader, unstated premise that dental treatment is somehow optional, even a luxury. From a coverage standpoint, it's as though the mouth is walled off from the rest of the body.
My diagnosis was followed by extractions, titanium implants in my jaw, installation of porcelain teeth on the implants, bone grafts, a series of gum surgeries -- and that was just the beginning. I've since had five more implants, more gum and bone grafts and many, many new crowns installed.
At least I've been able to get care. The situation is much worse for people with lower incomes and no family support. Although Medicaid, the state-federal insurer for poor and disabled people, covers children's dental services, states decide themselves on whether to offer benefits for adults. And many dentists won't accept patients on Medicaid, child or adult, because they consider the reimbursement rates too low.
The program typically pays as little as half of what they get from patients with private insurance. For example, as Kaiser Health News reported in 2016, Medicaid in Colorado pays $87 for a filling on a back tooth and $435 for a crown, compared with the $150 and $800 that private patients typically pay.
"It's really a labor of love to do it," said Dana Lubet, a recently retired dentist in Madison, Wis., who estimated Medicaid paid only a third of his costs. Accepting too many, he said, "could easily kill your practice."
A few years ago, while in his mid-50s, Nick DiGeronimo, a facility maintenance worker at a New Jersey sports center, obtained private insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act, hoping to get treatment for progressive tooth decay.
He needed two implants but, to his dismay, the plan did not cover them. To pay the $10,500 bill, he had to take out loans. "Dental insurance is basically useless," said DiGeronimo. "It's a sham, a waste of money, and another case of the haves versus the have-nots."
As for older Americans, many lose employer-based dental coverage when they retire even as they suffer from increasing dental problems. Among those 65 and older, 70 percent have some form of periodontal disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet basic Medicare plans do not include dental coverage, although options exist for seniors to purchase it.
Overall, in 2015, almost 35 percent of American adults of working age did not have dental insurance. By contrast, only about 12 percent of American adults under 65 did not have medical insurance in 2016. That lack of coverage and treatment can diminish economic and social opportunities -- for instance, it can be costly at work or in a job interview not to smile because of unsightly or missing teeth.
Eventually, poor prevention and treatment can become a medical problem -- leading to serious, and occasionally deadly, health consequences. In an infamous 2007 case -- described by Mary Otto in her book "Teeth: The Story of Beauty, Inequality and the Struggle for Oral Health in America" -- Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old boy in Maryland, died after a tooth infection spread to his brain. The family's Medicaid coverage had lapsed.
Research has demonstrated links between periodontal infections and chronic conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Studies have found associations between periodontitis and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as premature labor and low birth weight. Tooth problems also hinder chewing and eating, affecting nutritional status.
In the U.S., the long-standing rift between doctors and dentists was institutionalized in 1840, when the University of Maryland refused to add training in dentistry and oral surgery to its medical school curriculum -- leading to the creation of the world's first dental school.
Dentists have in some ways benefited from the separation -- largely escaping the corporate consolidation of American medicine, with many making good livings in smaller practices. Patients often willingly pay out-of-pocket, at least to a point.
Some people deliberately forgo dental coverage, considering it less urgent than having insurance against medical catastrophes. "You might not get a job as hostess at the restaurant, but by the same token people that have a lot of missing teeth live to tell the tales," Lubet said.
With fluoridation and advances in treatment, many Americans have come to take the health of their teeth for granted and shifted their attention to more cosmetic concerns. And the dental field has profited from the business.
In my experience, which includes extensive travel in other countries, Americans often seem disoriented or even horrified when confronted with imperfect dentition. During my period of intense dental care here, I hated wearing temporaries and often braved the public with missing front teeth. I found myself routinely reassuring people that, yes, I knew about the gap, and yes, I was having it dealt with.
Meanwhile, the bold line between what is covered or what is not often strikes patients as nonsensical.
Last fall, Lewis Nightingale, 68, a retired art director in San Francisco, needed surgery to deal with a benign tumor in the bone near his upper right teeth. The oral surgeon and the ear, nose and throat doctor consulted and agreed the former was best suited to handle the operation, although either one was qualified to do it.
Nightingale's Medicare plan would have covered a procedure performed by the ear, nose and throat doctor, he said. But it did not cover the surgery in this case because it was done by an oral surgeon -- a dental specialist. Nightingale had no dental insurance, so he was stuck with the $3,000 bill.
If only his tumor had placed itself just a few inches away, he thought.
"I said, what if I had nose cancer, or throat cancer?" Nightingale said. "To separate out dental problems from anything else seems arbitrary. I have great medical insurance, so why isn't my medical insurance covering it?"
Thousand Oaks resident Mitchell D. Rosenberg, CLU, ChFC, CFP, CPA (inactive), MSFS, AEP, from the San Fernando Valley general office of New York Life, has received the Agent of the Year Award for 2017.
This award recognizes the agent who has achieved the top production among all agents at the company’s San Fernando Valley general office within a calendar year.
“We applaud Mitch for this achievement,” said Jeffrey Dyson, managing partner of the office. “Being acknowledged as the Agent of the Year is a significant accomplishment. He received this recognition for his ability to meet the financial needs of families and businesses in the Greater Los Angeles and Ventura County areas, including the San Fernando and Conejo Valleys.”
More business news: Amgen extends sponsorship of Tour of California
Rosenberg, an agent since 1986, is the former president of both the Conejo Valley Estate Planning Council and Woodland Hills Estate and Tax Planning Councils and a founding and executive committee member of both Provisors Warner Center 1 and Westlake 2 Chapters. He is a member of the Society of Financial Service Professionals and the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting. He is also a founding member of the Los Angeles chapter of the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley Alumni Network.
He received his Chartered Life Underwriter, Chartered Financial Consultant and Master of Science in Financial Services Degree designations from the American College in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, and his Certified Financial Planner designation from the College for Financial Planning in Denver. He earned his Certified Public Accountant credentials working for Price Waterhouse & Company. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. He was awarded the AEP by National Association of Estate Planners & Councils
Rosenberg has achieved Million Dollar Roundtable “Top of the Table” status, which is the highest level of roundtable membership, and is a qualifying and life member of the roundtable.
An active volunteer who contributes time volunteering his services for Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Rosenberg has also secured multiple community impact grants from the New York Life Foundation.
He and his wife, Melanie, live in Thousand Oaks, and their twins, Andrew and Paige are seniors at UC Berkeley and their oldest daughter, Ashley, is working for LinkedIn in San Francisco.
You’re on an overseas trip and about to rent a car. You decline the additional insurance offer and mentally high-five yourself for saying no because your credit card offers primary rental coverage.
Not so fast, smarty-pants.
Although the Nerds are generally fond of credit cards that offer some form of auto rental insurance, be aware that even if you have primary coverage via your card, you might still want more, especially when traveling internationally. Here’s why.
Understand your coverage
Several credit cards offer primary rental coverage as part of their cardholder benefits, which means the card would pay out first in the event of an accident and you could avoid involving your own auto insurer.
But that may not be what the rental car agent is offering with your rental agreement. You might be asked to opt for a collision damage waiver, or CDW (also known as a loss damage waiver). If you elect this option, and your rental car is damaged or stolen, the car rental company will likely waive any costs to you.
So why would you pay extra for a CDW when your credit card already provides primary rental car insurance?
Well, even though the latter provides protection in the case of an accident, you’ll likely still have to deal with a deductible, paperwork and lost time as you wait to be reimbursed by insurance. In most cases, a CDW lets you walk away free of all of those hassles and expenses, which can become even more cumbersome when you’re dealing with them internationally.
CDW waivers can cost between $10 and $30 per day. So if you’re renting a car for two weeks, it can pile a significant sum onto your rental fees. But consider whether what you’d save by skipping the CDW would be outweighed by the out-of-pocket costs, increased insurance premiums and headaches while dealing with an international claims process.
Be aware of exceptions by card, country
Every credit card has its own policies and restrictions, and insurance criteria may differ depending on where you’re traveling. A sampling of some potential trip-ups:
Discover discontinued car rental insurance as a benefit on any of its cards as of Feb. 28, 2018.
American Express cards can provide primary rental coverage, but you have to enroll and there’s a flat rate of $19.95 or $24.95 per rental period depending on the coverage you select (less in California and Florida). Know that the coverage doesn’t include any vehicles rented in Australia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica and New Zealand.
Italy requires all foreign renters to include a collision damage waiver in their rental agreement.
Ireland allows foreign renters to decline the collision damage waiver, but the rental company may place a hold on your credit card for the amount of the deductible, which could cost thousands and hamper your purchasing power while you’re traveling.
The Chase Sapphire Preferred® Card and the Chase Sapphire Reserve® both offer primary rental insurance and don’t exclude any countries, but they do exclude most luxury cars, including certain models of BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac and Lincoln.
Ask the right questions
If you have more than one card that offers primary rental insurance, it’s likely that each one has different coverage. Before your trip, call the number on the back of your card and ask the representative for the most up-to-date information so you use the best card for your circumstances. You should know that in most cases the coverage may exclude:
Certain countries or territories, specific to each issuer and card
Luxury and antique vehicles
Trucks and other cars with open beds
Motorcycles, mopeds and RVs
Rentals lasting past a certain number of days. Some cards won’t cover rentals longer than 15 days; others won’t cover rental agreements that are longer than 31 days.
Weigh the pros and cons
If you did your due diligence and feel that your credit card’s coverage is sufficient for your trip, you then have to consider whether the cost of purchasing the rental agency’s CDW is worth it to you. It may add significant cost to the rental.
The flip side is that without it, if anything happens to the car, you’ll likely owe a deductible, have to pay for any repair charges upfront and wait to get reimbursed from the insurance company.
There are also other rental insurance options besides your credit card coverage or the rental agency’s CDW. If you’d rather price-shop to get the best rates, or buy a different policy altogether, use a site like InsureMyRentalCar.com, or consider adding collision coverage as part of a larger trip cancellation insurance plan.
Best Car Insurance is an online insurance agency that sells beyond what traditional car insurance agencies are selling. There are some less known coverages that can save you lots of headache if you were ever told. Read further to learn more.
Singapore, Singapore – May 23, 2018 /MarketersMedia/ —
Purchasing car Insurance is made easy these days by Best Car Insurance the agency name for car insurance online in Singapore. They are professional company formed by Insured United Agency Singapore that sells beyond just traditional car insurance online.
The website of Best Car Insurance Singapore provides quick and simple form for any car owner to get instant quote for insurance online. There is an option to contact directly to make a request during office hours as well. The user experience is well-liked by people who has used the agency’s website to purchase insurance policies.
The car insurance coverage includes additional items which car owner can add. These includes:• NCD protector,• Excess waiver,• Higher Medical Expense or Personal Accident Coverage,• Higher Flood Protection• Overseas Protector for Travellers
Insurance plays a vital role in protecting not just the owner but to protect the potential financial grieve for the car owner. Since the cost of replacement for a car or car repair can put car owner in Singapore to deep financial crisis when one is not prepared.
Singapore is known to be the most expensive country to own a car in the South East Asia. For a typical Japanese imported car with price of $40,000, car owner can be paying an additional $50,000 for the “Certificate of Entitlement” – A government issued certificate to own a car. So, the total price for a car can well be more than the value of the imported car.
Insured United Agency understands the demand of this and from the online service agency “Best Car Insurance Singapore” to focus on just automobile insurance. Types of auto insurance is not restricted to private vehicle. The company is also popular among commercial companies that has large fleet of commercial vehicles that runs island wide or cross border to Malaysia. Best Car Insurance Singapore covers Singapore owned vehicle locally and while in business or pleasure overseas. Customized insurance policy is possible with request and approval from insurer.
While one may have an extensive journey travelling to and from neighbouring countries via their motor vehicle, Best Car Insurance Singapore cross-sell insurance policies from Insured United Agency with comprehensive and instant travel insurance policies that covers the vehicle owner.
Other than car insurance, the company will recommend additional protection as seem suitable. These additional optional addon includes personal accident insurance, medical insurance, business insurance and domestic helper insurance (applicable with domestic help is travelling with owner in the vehicle).
Contact Info:Name: Daniel SingEmail: enquiry@bestcarinsurance.com.sgOrganization: Best Car InsuranceAddress: 18 Tagore Lane #04-01 Singapore 787477Phone: +65 67441339
For more information, please visit http://www.bestcarinsurance.com.sg
Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. Frankly and this Station make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. If you are affiliated with this page and would like it removed please contact pressreleases@franklyinc.com
After backing lending company Capital Float recently, Amazon has now invested $12 million in a digital general insurance company, Acko General Insurance. The round of funding also saw participation from ChrysCapital’s Ashish Dhawan, and existing investor, Narayana Murthy’s Catamaran Ventures. The latest fund infusion takes Acko’s total equity funding to nearly $42 million, the company said in a statement.
The digital insurance company sells general insurance products like auto insurance and mobile insurance on its online platform. Acko has a partnership with cab-hailing company Ola for in-trip insurance for riders. The insurance program allows users to claim insurance of up to Rs 5 lakh benefits in cases of loss of baggage or laptops, missed flights, accidental medical expense, ambulance transportation cover,
If you ask the average consumer about car insurance, it’s very possible the answer will include an audible huff of frustration, followed by an expression of exasperation.
If insurance could be simplified, with quotes created with no input from the customer, sighs of irritation could be turned into sighs of relief. Imagine! The end of filling in long data requests online for brokers, insurers or price comparison sites, and no more prolonged phone calls.
