Insurance is budding in California's cannabis industry

 When it comes to coverage, Jackson says businesses need to look to property, products and general liability risks coverage. (Photographer: Trevor Hagan/Bloomberg)
Nearly 22 years ago, California voters enacted a ballot measure legalizing the medical use of cannabis. Today, cannabis is now legal in 47 states (adult-use, cannabinoid only, hemp, and medicinal).

For years, California has been depicted laxly when it comes to marijuana. But when it comes to marijuana and the insurance coverage needed to protect citizens and businesses, it is anything but.

“Whenever anyone shops in, sells products to, or invests in a cannabis business, I want there to be insurance coverage available,” said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones in a statement.

Commissioner Jones has launched initiatives to encourage commercial insurance companies to write insurance to fill coverage gaps for the cannabis industry. Most recently, the first coverage for commercial landlords for the industry was announced earlier this month.

To better understand this budding industry’s need, Commissioner Jones, in conjunction with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Center for Insurance Policy and Research, hosted a national webinar titled Weeding through the Unique Insurance Needs of the Cannabis Industry. Here are some key insights from the webinar.

Related: New opportunities for Calif. insurers as Trump abandons Sessions’ policy on cannabis

Who’s insuring the cannabis?
There are a limited number of approved admitted insurers in California today: Golden Bear Insurance Company, which offers multi-line coverage; California Mutual Insurance, which offers lessor’s risk; Continental Heritage Insurance Company, which offers a surety bond; and AAIS (which has forms pending department approval).

“The pros of placing coverage with an admitted insurer often comes that benefit of joint review with the department and the insurer before the product hits the market. Another benefit is that admitted markets strive to adopt standardized forms that brokers and insurers are familiar with,” says Stacey Jackson, general counsel for Golden Bear Insurance Company, during the webinar.

While there are currently 24 surplus lines carriers writing cannabis on a non-admitted basis, Jackson predicts carriers will join the admitted market but concedes the pros of the surplus lines market exist because they have the advantage of flexibility over an admitted carrier.

Related: When marijuana collides with the claims industry

New business, similar risks
Like any business, the cannabis industry has a unique set of risks and exposures to account for. When it comes to coverage, Jackson says businesses need to look to property, products and general liability risks coverage.

“Those three coverages are coverages that every cannabis insurer is going to need,” says Jackson.

The property coverage is necessary for risks associated with any loss or damage to the product or the physical structures at the location. Property coverage is also going to likely include business interruption coverage so that the insured can be reimbursed for any income loss during that downtime. Products liability is essential for liability protection in the event that a product is defective. General liability is separate and covers bodily injury and property damage arising from any accident that happens on the premises.

The marijuana supply chain — cultivators, processors, manufacturers, retail dispensaries, testing labs and transportation — has first- and third-party cannabis risks which the insurance industry should look to capitalize on as the market emerges.

For example, many cultivators grow their crop either indoors or outdoors. Like any other farmer, they face risks of fires or pesticides. For those that grow indoors, those risks exist plus others such as a power outage and mold. Additionally, there could also be product liability if an unapproved pesticide is used on the plant and someone claims they’ve become ill from it.

As the cannabis industry continues to bloom, it cannot go forward without proper insurance coverage — for the sake of all the consumers and businesses involved in the process.

In California, at least, there are signs of life — and insurance — amongst the weeds.

WNS Named a ‘Leader’ in Everest Group PEAK Matrix™ for Property & Casualty Insurance Business Process Services

NEW YORK & MUMBAI, India--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

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.

BlaBlaCar and AXA launch car insurance product

 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.

Travel insurance tips: Is an annual insurance policy worth the money?

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.

Michael Gebicki

Fairness of insurance contracts under scrutiny

Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi is conducting a review of insurance law in a bid to get consumers a fairer deal.

Fixing the insurance industry requires fixing a broken court system, says Séamus O'Cromtha from the "Prisoners of Tower" protest group.

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.

Consumer NZ calls for 'closer look' at insurance sold via car dealers

 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.

National disability insurance scheme complaints reach record level

 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.