If you are insured with Setanta Insurance

Hi RainyDay

I had not heard of this company before. I gather that it sold all its insurance via brokers to commercial customers.

Maybe the brokers should have raised questions about the regulation?

I don't want to bail out personal depositors or personal insurance customers, but I certainly don't want to bail out the commercial insurance customers of a foreign regulated insurance company.
 
Good point - are brokers required to consider risk as part of their recommendations to their clients? It would also be interesting to hear more about the commissions offered by this crowd, relative to the rest of the market.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I don't think so. Each holiday company must be bonded, i.e. they have an insurance policy in place, so that if they go bust, the insurance company pays for the customer to get home.
Click to expand...
So could we ask through regulation that the insurance Companies be bonded in the same manner?

Brendan Burgess said:
I gather that it sold all its insurance via brokers to commercial customers.
Click to expand...
Not true, My Sister and BIL had both their cars insured with Setanta through a broker
 
Interesting to see from this thread back in 2008 that they were extremely cheap

Setanta Insurances - Askaboutmoney.com

From reading this thread anyone who has been with them for a few years has saved a lot of money, so they have probably made up for their lost premium this year. Of course, if they have an unpaid claim, they will probably be a net loser.


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=931403&postcount=6


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1249726&postcount=2


They also seem to have been less fussy about endorsements on one's license


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=799413&postcount=13

And they kept NCBs alive for longer

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1227582&postcount=8
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Of course, if they have an unpaid claim, they will probably be a net loser.
Click to expand...
The unpaid claim would be for someone claiming against a driver previously insured with Setanta, right? Rather than the Setanta customer.

Would the MIBI cover such claims?
 
Hi RainyDay

If you crash into me, my claim is against you. Your insurance company indemnifies you. If your insurance company is gone bust, I will pursue you for damages.

If you can't or won't pay, the MIBI will pay for personal injuries only, but they will try to recover the money from you.

If you crash your white van into a wall and you have comprehensive insurance, you may have a claim against Setanta, but if they are gone bust, you will lose out.
 
Many years ago the PMPA insurance went bust, leaving thousands of motorist without insurance. A system was supposed to have been set up so it would never happen again, what went wrong? Could 123 be next because they are very competitive?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
AIB was happy to let it go into liquidation, but I think it was persuaded to contribute to the cost of bailing out the policyholders.


. They would take far more risks if they knew that the state would bail out every failed business.


.
Click to expand...

AIB paid nothing in their own insurance scandal, and if they did, it was the banks customers who paid. Banks never pay anything.

And speaking of risks, most of the Irish banks took hugh risks during the boom, and they all still exist. So they might operate as a commercial enterprise, but they have the ultimate state guarantee. And we've yet to see anyone jailed for any of that debacle.

In relation to Setanta, only some people will have lost a whole years policy, but many more will only be losing a few months, depends when the policy was up for renewal. Any of those who didn't pay up front should now stop the direct debits etc. They will be at no loss at all.

There's been a lot of fuss about this company being based in Malta, but does that actually make any difference? If they were Irish based so what, they are bust all the same. Personally after what we've experienced of Irish regulation I'd say the Maltese are a better bet.
 
RainyDay said:
Good point - are brokers required to consider risk as part of their recommendations to their clients? It would also be interesting to hear more about the commissions offered by this crowd, relative to the rest of the market.
Click to expand...

No. They aren't. And the commission was no more than any other motor insurer out there. They just happened to be particularly cheap for certain criteria. They offered open drive, driving other vans, and other little bits.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
123 is a broker but is part of RSA, a very large insurance company worldwide.

A disaster in Ireland would be met by the parent company.
Click to expand...
Or to be more specific, a disaster at 123 has already been met by the parent company;
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ing-over-company-s-audited-accounts-1.1604245

peteb said:
No. They aren't.
Click to expand...
Shame really. That's exactly the kind of thing that consumers would find it effectively impossible to assess, so professional involvement would be very helpful.

peteb said:
And the commission was no more than any other motor insurer out there. They just happened to be particularly cheap for certain criteria. They offered open drive, driving other vans, and other little bits.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
You always hear a lot of people banging on about "sure why can't I just get insured elsewhere in the world?" Now they know why!!
 
Bronte said:
e jaile

In relation to Setanta, only some people will have lost a whole years policy, but many more will only be losing a few months, depends when the policy was up for renewal. Any of those who didn't pay up front should now stop the direct debits etc. They will be at no loss at all.

There's been a lot of fuss about this company being based in Malta, but does that actually make any difference? If they were Irish based so what, they are bust all the same. Personally after what we've experienced of Irish regulation I'd say the Maltese are a better bet.
Click to expand...

I have lost 8 months of insurance by Setanta going bust. The only reason I insured with them was I wanted to have open driving on my car and this is difficult to get with other companies. I paid €560 for my insurance so not a cheapy in my opinion. I now have a quote from Aviva for approx €50 more for the year. Here is my problem when I read the small print on the Aviva quote it says: Aviva Insurance Limited, trading as Aviva, is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority in the UK and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland for conduct of business rules. Registered Branch Office in Ireland No 900175. Registered Branch Address One Park Place, Hatch Street, Dublin 2. Registered in Scotland No 2116. Registered Office Pitheavlis, Perth, PH2 0NH. Isn't that the same wording as Setanta only with Malta been replaced by the UK? Is it any better to have the UK instead of Malta?
 
Aviva is a long established, large, company.

Setanta was founded in 2008 I think. Start ups have a much higher chance of failure.
 
123 is not a broker. It is a tied agent of RSA. It only offers RSA products.
 
The issue is that you have companies passporting in insurance products from somewhere like Malta that have lower or more relaxed solvency requirements than other countries so there is increased premium risk to policyholders. There is nothing illegal about it and Malta is perfectly entitled to regulate the way it does. The question is if these companies should be allowed sell into markets using Malta as a base. Solvency II is due to deal with this and create a more level playing field but that won't be until at least 2016.
 
Relevant sections of the Central Bank's [broken link removed]

[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e Insurance Compensation Fund (the “Fund”)[/FONT]

Introduction

It is maintained and administered under the control of the President of the High Court acting through the Accountant of the High Court.

The Fund is primarily designed to facilitate payments to policyholders in relation to risks in the State where an Irish authorised or an EU authorised non-life insurer goes into liquidation and the approval of the High Court has been obtained for such payments. In such circumstances not all policyholder liabilities are covered and exclusions include health, dental and life policies.

Contributions to the Fund

The Fund is financed through contributions received from non-life insurance companies on business written in respect of risks in the State, up to a maximum of 2% of Gross Written Premium (GWP). In this regard, it should be noted that excluded risks are not levied.


Payments from the Fund


A) For non-life insurance companies in liquidation: Where an undertaking authorised in another Member State goes into liquidation and policyholders in relation to risks in the State are affected, the Accountant of the High Court can make an application to the High Court on their behalf and can distribute any sums due to such policyholders. The total amount that may be paid out of the Fund in respect of any sum due to a person under a policy in the situations outlined above shall not exceed (whether as one payment or as the total of a series of payments) 65% of the sum due to the policyholder or €825,000 whichever is the less. A sum due to a commercial policyholder may not be paid out of the Fund unless the sum is due in respect of a liability to an individual.
Click to expand...

So the Irish policy holders of Setanta paid the 2%(?) contribution to the fund.

Most of the customers are commercial policyholders. If they crashed into a vehicle owned by a company, as distinct from an individual, the company would have no claim on the fund. They would have to claim directly against the insured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top