[Question] Outsurance

[Martinco]

What is your opinion...........................is Outsurance really cheaper than say, Santam or M&F, if you compare apples to apples ?
And should you have a claim, are they as quick as what they claim to be and without hassles ?
What has been your experience ?

[Justloadit]

Personally with the amount of advertising they are doing, is that they are desperate to convince you that they are good.
Secondly, if you have no representation with the insurer, they are gonna eat you alive.
Thirdly they have all these little clauses that come and bite you when you claim.

Just an example an acquaintance, loaned his car to his son to drive to Sun City. It was stolen there. He was not paid out, because the policy stated that only him the nominated driver was allowed to drive the vehicle according to the policy.

[Dave A]

Just an example an acquaintance, loaned his car to his son to drive to Sun City. It was stolen there. He was not paid out, because the policy stated that only him the nominated driver was allowed to drive the vehicle according to the policy.

I suspect there's more than a few other insurance companies that would also repudiate that claim if the policy had a "nominated driver(s)" clause.

For me, I have trouble buying into the "no brokers" angle. Over the years having an insurance broker has served me well and I view mine as an asset, not a liability.

[Justloadit]

I suspect there's more than a few other insurance companies that would also repudiate that claim if the policy had a "nominated driver(s)" clause.

For me, I have trouble buying into the "no brokers" angle. Over the years having an insurance broker has served me well and I view mine as an asset, not a liability.

Absolutely Dave.

Another thing which people think is a good thing with Outsurance, is that they go to a claims centre who evaluate your damage and give you a cheque for the damage. It is then your responsibility to find a panel beater to do the repair. On the surface this sounds good, as you think that you can save money by negotiating with the panel beater. Now we all know what is going to happen, you are going to get a substandard repair on the one hand, and on the oeehr hand, which happens all the time, some hidden damage was not identified by the accessor, and you already have your claim paid to you.

I have a broker, when I have a claim, I phone and the rest is history. The world is too complicated, and you can not be a master of everything. I of the opinion, hat everyone has a right to earn a living, just provide a value add to what ever you are doing and you will make it.

[IanF]

I am with Outsurance, I haven't had a problem yet. But when you make a claim you do get the feeling they are looking for an angle to refute the claim. 2 years ago my daughter had an accident when she took my wife's car to varisity, then they phoned her and asked If I ask your friends will they tell me that use use the car a lot? That did not sit well with me. It was the first and subsequently the only time she she borrowed the car to to varsity.
Then the outbonus has the most retarded rules attached to it, even the agents at outsurance can't explain why when they get the money back as the accident wasn't your fault you lose the outbonus.
I wonder if the insurance ombudsman has stats on compliants from the various companies?

[Phil Cooper]

OUTSURANCE

Their policy wording does leave out a number of extensions "conventional" insurers give. (this is th case with most Direct insurers).

As a Broker, I can, more often than not, underquote them, with wider cover. (They may underquote your existing business up front to get the business, then prod it up gently in little jumps which do don't really feel, but add up.

Then when you tell them you want to move, they will suddenly drop premiums again.

As I say on my web page - when you have a loss do you want to deal with an Insurer whose profits depend on [I]minimising [I] your claim, or a Broker, who, to keep you happy, will ensure that your claim is MAXIMISED?

The Ombudsman does have stats, but to date will not release them. But look at the relative complaints on a site like hellopeter.com and you will see their ratios are WELL in excess of their market share.

[emeraldgreen]

Not that I had a problem with Outsurance over the last 13 years but it was a unpleasant surprise that when through the recommendation of my older brother to get a quote from Alexander Forbes for their "55 Plus" product. I was insured for 2cars, contents of house and the buildings. My premium reduced by more than 50%. But please note I am now over 55 and appears to be less of a risk then the young folk. Not that I can think it has any thing to do with being a lesser risk getting unwanted visitors

[roryf]

I am with Dave on this one.Having a broker might cost a bit more but if the *&^% hits the fan,they do become very handy. My broker also has plenty experience in the smaller details that I do not even think about asking.

I wouldn't change easily.

[Pap_sak]

Been with Outsurance for 3 years (businesses and cars) never had to claim - so cannot comment on that side. But on price...was paying on the business side around R970 pm, just had a quote from a broker at Mutual & Federal R241! Need to get my head a round it - but it seems to be the same coverage....

[Phil Cooper]

M & F

Hi

The fact you can get cheaper cover with M&F does not surprise me - Outsurance are NOT cheap, despite adverts!

BUT - discrepancy is too great - worries me - and that kind of premium INCLUDING Motor seems WAY too low!

If you want me to look at the 2 of them and give you comment - NO cost or obligation - happy to help!

[AndyD]

Even without knowledge of the policies, or the insurance industry for that matter, I would also be very suspicious of such a big price difference. If there's no obvious reason it might be worth getting a professional to cast a beady eye over the small print and legalese. If it looks too good to be true it usually is.

[ELBiz]

Cost-effective insurance that pays claims with no hassle?

I don't know of any cost-effective insurance out there. Have been with Sanlam, Absa, M&F and Prestasi before. None of them are eager to pay out any claims - there is always red tape .... and you just seem to pay, pay and pay and yet they always seem to find a reason why they won't be liable. Two friends of mine are with Outsurance and both are happy with the service. Both had claims and there was no issue.

[Phil Cooper]

The case for using a broker

The Financial Mail was interviewing the MD of a Direct Insurer. It makes interesting reading. I think the MD shot himself in the foot - and gave one of the BEST reasons FOR using a Broker.

What do you think?

Or: With friends like this, who needs enemies…

I was reading a well-known financial website the other day when I came across this little insightful gem… It was one in a series of questions asked by a seasoned financial journalist of a well-known direct insurer that isn’t linked to telesure.

“…Q: Why do the direct insurers have lower claims ratios than the broker-based businesses?

A: We are better at selecting risk as we bring in clients one by one. Santam, Mutual & Federal and Zurich get a portfolio of business from a broker and sometimes take on a few bad risks to keep the business. And brokers certainly put pressure on the insurers to pay their clients’ claims. We are not as lenient. …”

I had to re-read the response, specifically the last sentence. I haven’t seen any retractions since that article appeared so I have to assume the CEO signed off on the comment. If that’s the case this sounds like a direct attack on the broker market. This is rather interesting considering that the business is part of a bigger group, which has a rather large broker force that they get business from.

We are not as lenient? Really? That’s something your clients want to hear. Especially those that have chosen to go the direct route because the premiums are lower and they cut out the middleman. While it might make great sense to the shareholders of this listed company, it’s a relatively small portion of their total short-term business, as brokers still play a significant part in the income generation.

This almost sounds like a message to potential clients to rather work through a broker, especially if your are a “bad risk” because the broker will put pressure on the insurer to settle the claim. Oops – another side swipe at the broker for forcing the insurer to undertake ‘bad’ business practice.

In fact now that I think of it, brokers should be thanking this direct insurer for making the business case for brokers, their way. After all they put pressure on insurers to pay out the few bad risk clients. What a crock of smelly poo. Nobody does business like that, except for a few bad apples.

[Dave A]

Phil, are you seriously suggesting brokers don't horsetrade with the insurance companies?

There is another way of looking at the point, though. If you are a low risk client, this suggests you would save money cutting out the broker.

The problem comes at claim time though - which is the real reason I hang onto doing things through my broker. It helps to have the leverage the broker can bring to bear if you have a bad run. And if we could predict when accidents, thefts, insurable losses etc. were going to happen, we wouldn't need insurance in the first place, would we

[Phil Cooper]

Brokers

Hi

No - of course we horsetrade - that is our job!

BUT - even if you are a "good client" the Direct guys WILL be harsher than with a broker backing you!

Bear in mind - you can have NO claims for 10 years - then 3 in a month - Murphy's law, and I KNOW that! Seen it so often!


THEN see what the Direct Guys do!

I have just had a claim for R350,000 paid for a client which (technically) was outside the ambit of the policy. BUT - because client had had a good run with the Insurer for 5 years - and the rest of my "book" with the Insurer is running well - they found a way to pay it.

Try THAT with a Direct market!