 Poster: A snowHead
|
Regarding MPI and Ageas.
I read that their relationship started in 2018 but it's not totally clear if Ageas now underwrite and manage claims for all MPI policies. Anyone know?
I had house insurance for a number of years with Ageas as they took over the book of the company we were originally insured with. It became very expensive. Which may partly explain MPI's price hikes over the last couple of years. We also had to claim from Ageas on the house insurance twice. It wasn't what I would call straightforward though it was paid out in the end.
I think MPI is too expensive now and not sure about Ageas as a claim handler. Though to be fair it's hard to judge claim handlers - who by definition have to scrutinise claims carefully. We all want cheap insurance that pays out with no fuss which is difficult to square away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Layne wrote: |
| I read that their relationship started in 2018 but it's not totally clear if Ageas now underwrite and manage claims for all MPI policies. Anyone know? |
Bit of a strange one this. The PDF claims forms say Claims International Limited, a company that AFAIK no longer exists since about 10 years ago. The return address is an MPI email address but I suspect that would be picked up either by Ageas or by an in house or outsourced claims handler.
Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. They actually have a decent reputation for paying out so there will be a couple of possible reasons why they don't - (1) the circumstances of the claim simply are not covered by the policy wording - if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground. If in doubt the FOS will normally find in customer’s favour (2) they are deliberately tightening up because the scheme is performing poorly in terms of loss ratio - not a huge surprise with a ski insurance product even without Covid 19!
| Layne wrote: |
| I had house insurance for a number of years with Ageas …. It became very expensive. …. We also had to claim from Ageas on the house insurance twice….. |
QED.
| Layne wrote: |
| We all want cheap insurance that pays out with no fuss which is difficult to square away. |
It’s worse than that, people want it to pay out multiple times and they want it to pay out for things they ‘assumed’ would be covered without actually checking until after the event. Then they moan.
The mathematics look a bit like this – 20% of your premium goes to HMRC in insurance premium tax. About 40% of your premium goes in commission, either to a broker like MPI or to a comparison site. What’s left is retained by the insurer and they like to hang on to 70-80% of that to run the business and make a profit, the risk is all their own – it’s a shock I know, insurance companies are businesses and not charities. Some insurers have direct sell brands and the likes of MPI find themselves in competition with them so are easily beaten on price, hence sometimes looking expensive.
Out of every £100 in premium, only around £40 is available to pay claims. That is just a fact. So next time any of you pay peanuts for an annual multi trip you should stop and wonder how it might go if you slap in a claim.
Medical screening premiums are separate and not usually commissionable AFAIK.
I have an all-my-eggs-in-one-basket approach - starting with the big ones, home (buildings and contents) and car(s) and then add in travel. I use NFU Mutual for just about everything. Firstly, you deal with a real local human with an email and mobile phone number, secondly they are known to pay out even when strictly speaking they don't need to because they are very long term and lastly, there's a clue in the name, they are a mutual and a greater proportion of your premium is available for claims. They will never be the cheapest but above all you want insurance to actually work when you need it to.
The other company I would consider (but not a mutual) is Chubb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
For what its worth I spoke to my solicitor who advised that Ageas are attempting to change the terms of the policy and using it as a reason not to meet the claim. I’m happy to play the long game on this and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Layne wrote: |
| @milzibkit, whilst I understand Ageas are managing the claim I would have thought MPI would have some interest and hold some sway in it's outcome. That is to say if Ageas are wrong or are being intransigent and this became prevalent and/or widely known it could affect their business. Might be worth asking MPI what their opinion is on the claim. I mean if you made the query before buying what would they say? |
I did approach MPI when my initial claim was rejected. They were sympathetic, said they agreed with me that I should be covered under the policy and that they'd been taking this up directly with Ageas too...but ultimately MPI said I need to go through Ageas' complaints process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| Layne wrote: |
| I read that their relationship started in 2018 but it's not totally clear if Ageas now underwrite and manage claims for all MPI policies. Anyone know? |
Bit of a strange one this. The PDF claims forms say Claims International Limited, a company that AFAIK no longer exists since about 10 years ago. The return address is an MPI email address but I suspect that would be picked up either by Ageas or by an in house or outsourced claims handler.
Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. They actually have a decent reputation for paying out so there will be a couple of possible reasons why they don't - (1) the circumstances of the claim simply are not covered by the policy wording - if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground. If in doubt the FOS will normally find in customer’s favour (2) they are deliberately tightening up because the scheme is performing poorly in terms of loss ratio - not a huge surprise with a ski insurance product even without Covid 19!
| Layne wrote: |
| I had house insurance for a number of years with Ageas …. It became very expensive. …. We also had to claim from Ageas on the house insurance twice….. |
QED.
| Layne wrote: |
| We all want cheap insurance that pays out with no fuss which is difficult to square away. |
It’s worse than that, people want it to pay out multiple times and they want it to pay out for things they ‘assumed’ would be covered without actually checking until after the event. Then they moan.
The mathematics look a bit like this – 20% of your premium goes to HMRC in insurance premium tax. About 40% of your premium goes in commission, either to a broker like MPI or to a comparison site. What’s left is retained by the insurer and they like to hang on to 70-80% of that to run the business and make a profit, the risk is all their own – it’s a shock I know, insurance companies are businesses and not charities. Some insurers have direct sell brands and the likes of MPI find themselves in competition with them so are easily beaten on price, hence sometimes looking expensive.
Out of every £100 in premium, only around £40 is available to pay claims. That is just a fact. So next time any of you pay peanuts for an annual multi trip you should stop and wonder how it might go if you slap in a claim.
Medical screening premiums are separate and not usually commissionable AFAIK.
I have an all-my-eggs-in-one-basket approach - starting with the big ones, home (buildings and contents) and car(s) and then add in travel. I use NFU Mutual for just about everything. Firstly, you deal with a real local human with an email and mobile phone number, secondly they are known to pay out even when strictly speaking they don't need to because they are very long term and lastly, there's a clue in the name, they are a mutual and a greater proportion of your premium is available for claims. They will never be the cheapest but above all you want insurance to actually work when you need it to.
The other company I would consider (but not a mutual) is Chubb. |
Great post - very informative and reasoned. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Snowfinders wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
| Layne wrote: |
| I read that their relationship started in 2018 but it's not totally clear if Ageas now underwrite and manage claims for all MPI policies. Anyone know? |
Bit of a strange one this. The PDF claims forms say Claims International Limited, a company that AFAIK no longer exists since about 10 years ago. The return address is an MPI email address but I suspect that would be picked up either by Ageas or by an in house or outsourced claims handler.
Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. They actually have a decent reputation for paying out so there will be a couple of possible reasons why they don't - (1) the circumstances of the claim simply are not covered by the policy wording - if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground. If in doubt the FOS will normally find in customer’s favour (2) they are deliberately tightening up because the scheme is performing poorly in terms of loss ratio - not a huge surprise with a ski insurance product even without Covid 19!
| Layne wrote: |
| I had house insurance for a number of years with Ageas …. It became very expensive. …. We also had to claim from Ageas on the house insurance twice….. |
QED.
| Layne wrote: |
| We all want cheap insurance that pays out with no fuss which is difficult to square away. |
It’s worse than that, people want it to pay out multiple times and they want it to pay out for things they ‘assumed’ would be covered without actually checking until after the event. Then they moan.
The mathematics look a bit like this – 20% of your premium goes to HMRC in insurance premium tax. About 40% of your premium goes in commission, either to a broker like MPI or to a comparison site. What’s left is retained by the insurer and they like to hang on to 70-80% of that to run the business and make a profit, the risk is all their own – it’s a shock I know, insurance companies are businesses and not charities. Some insurers have direct sell brands and the likes of MPI find themselves in competition with them so are easily beaten on price, hence sometimes looking expensive.
Out of every £100 in premium, only around £40 is available to pay claims. That is just a fact. So next time any of you pay peanuts for an annual multi trip you should stop and wonder how it might go if you slap in a claim.
Medical screening premiums are separate and not usually commissionable AFAIK.
I have an all-my-eggs-in-one-basket approach - starting with the big ones, home (buildings and contents) and car(s) and then add in travel. I use NFU Mutual for just about everything. Firstly, you deal with a real local human with an email and mobile phone number, secondly they are known to pay out even when strictly speaking they don't need to because they are very long term and lastly, there's a clue in the name, they are a mutual and a greater proportion of your premium is available for claims. They will never be the cheapest but above all you want insurance to actually work when you need it to.
The other company I would consider (but not a mutual) is Chubb. |
Great post - very informative and reasoned. Thank you. |
It may be informative, but I don't know how relevant it is to this discussion. MPI are not cheap; many people with MPI/Ageas policies whose claims are currently being rejected may well have chosen MPI on the basis that they'd rather pay a bit more for a decent product than risk paying peanuts - I know that's certainly the view I took.
It seems from the posts in this thread that quite a few peoples' claims are being rejected by MPI's underwriter without merit and unfortunately that leads me to be very wary of using MPI for future trips - I may as well just pay peanuts for my policy.
As an interesting side point, my friend I travelled with did pay peanuts for his policy. We had exactly the same circumstances and costs incurred - yet his cheap as chips insurer paid out within a couple of weeks of him submitting his claim. Ageas rejected mine, didn't bother even acknowledging receipt of my subsequent complaint and when I did finally get them to respond, they referenced clearly irrelevant T&Cs and ignored the specific policy clause I'd highlighted to them which shows the policy should cover my circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| milzibkit wrote: |
| Snowfinders wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
| Layne wrote: |
| I read that their relationship started in 2018 but it's not totally clear if Ageas now underwrite and manage claims for all MPI policies. Anyone know? |
Bit of a strange one this. The PDF claims forms say Claims International Limited, a company that AFAIK no longer exists since about 10 years ago. The return address is an MPI email address but I suspect that would be picked up either by Ageas or by an in house or outsourced claims handler.
Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. They actually have a decent reputation for paying out so there will be a couple of possible reasons why they don't - (1) the circumstances of the claim simply are not covered by the policy wording - if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground. If in doubt the FOS will normally find in customer’s favour (2) they are deliberately tightening up because the scheme is performing poorly in terms of loss ratio - not a huge surprise with a ski insurance product even without Covid 19!
| Layne wrote: |
| I had house insurance for a number of years with Ageas …. It became very expensive. …. We also had to claim from Ageas on the house insurance twice….. |
QED.
| Layne wrote: |
| We all want cheap insurance that pays out with no fuss which is difficult to square away. |
It’s worse than that, people want it to pay out multiple times and they want it to pay out for things they ‘assumed’ would be covered without actually checking until after the event. Then they moan.
The mathematics look a bit like this – 20% of your premium goes to HMRC in insurance premium tax. About 40% of your premium goes in commission, either to a broker like MPI or to a comparison site. What’s left is retained by the insurer and they like to hang on to 70-80% of that to run the business and make a profit, the risk is all their own – it’s a shock I know, insurance companies are businesses and not charities. Some insurers have direct sell brands and the likes of MPI find themselves in competition with them so are easily beaten on price, hence sometimes looking expensive.
Out of every £100 in premium, only around £40 is available to pay claims. That is just a fact. So next time any of you pay peanuts for an annual multi trip you should stop and wonder how it might go if you slap in a claim.
Medical screening premiums are separate and not usually commissionable AFAIK.
I have an all-my-eggs-in-one-basket approach - starting with the big ones, home (buildings and contents) and car(s) and then add in travel. I use NFU Mutual for just about everything. Firstly, you deal with a real local human with an email and mobile phone number, secondly they are known to pay out even when strictly speaking they don't need to because they are very long term and lastly, there's a clue in the name, they are a mutual and a greater proportion of your premium is available for claims. They will never be the cheapest but above all you want insurance to actually work when you need it to.
The other company I would consider (but not a mutual) is Chubb. |
Great post - very informative and reasoned. Thank you. |
It may be informative, but I don't know how relevant it is to this discussion. MPI are not cheap; many people with MPI/Ageas policies whose claims are currently being rejected may well have chosen MPI on the basis that they'd rather pay a bit more for a decent product than risk paying peanuts - I know that's certainly the view I took.
It seems from the posts in this thread that quite a few peoples' claims are being rejected by MPI's underwriter without merit and unfortunately that leads me to be very wary of using MPI for future trips - I may as well just pay peanuts for my policy.
As an interesting side point, my friend I travelled with did pay peanuts for his policy. We had exactly the same circumstances and costs incurred - yet his cheap as chips insurer paid out within a couple of weeks of him submitting his claim. Ageas rejected mine, didn't bother even acknowledging receipt of my subsequent complaint and when I did finally get them to respond, they referenced clearly irrelevant T&Cs and ignored the specific policy clause I'd highlighted to them which shows the policy should cover my circumstances. |
the beauty of discussion is that it is organic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| ... Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. ... if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground.... |
In English law I think you'll find that any contract is with the broker, assuming they're the people who sold the thing.
On the second point, certainly they ought to be sure of their ground, but their judgement is irrelevant if your case is sound. They always talk tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
EHIC - read on BBC that if your trip starts before 31 Dec 20, then if over state pension age, trip will be covered by EHIC. Haven't found out if there is a time limit, but normally one should only be out of the UK system for max 3 months.
BBC Reality Check article:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44850972
And noted this phrase:
"UK state pensioners living in the EU before the end of 2020 will be able to use their EHIC beyond 2020"
So, starting a just under 90 day winter ski trip on 30 Dec seems to be a good idea??
The difficulty could be at be point of use and trying to explain to the hospital admin that your trip started before 31 Dec 2020 and that the EHIC is still valid for this on going trip in mid February!! I suspect most national admins won't have included that nuance in their BREXIT instructions.
And from Nationwide Flexplus Insurance:
If I book a trip will I be covered for coronavirus (COVID-19)?
Your travel insurance will provide cover for events relating to COVID-19, such as emergency medical expenses abroad, cancelling or cutting short a trip, as long as you are not travelling against doctor’s advice and the FCO were not advising against travel both when you booked your trip and when you depart on that trip.
Travel insurance will only cover you for circumstances that you were not aware of when you booked the trip or were due to travel.
We recommend you read your policy terms and conditions for full details on what is and isn’t covered.
Am I covered for medical expenses if I catch coronavirus (COVID-19) while on holiday?
As long as you are not travelling against doctor’s advice and are not travelling to an area where the FCO has advised against all travel, then you will be covered for medical including reasonable and necessary additional travel expenses that you may incur as a result of becoming ill.
If the FCO advice changes while you are on your trip, you will still be covered if you need to claim under the Emergency medical and travel costs section of cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
| ... Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. ... if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground.... |
In English law I think you'll find that any contract is with the broker, assuming they're the people who sold the thing.
On the second point, certainly they ought to be sure of their ground, but their judgement is irrelevant if your case is sound. They always talk tough. |
MPI will be agents, probably of Ageas I guess. I’m sure the contract was made between buyer and Ageas through the agency of MPI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
| ... Whatever, Ageas are the underwriter, that's who the contract is with and they ultimately decide on claims. ... if they let it get as far as the FOS then you can be sure they are certain of their ground.... |
In English law I think you'll find that any contract is with the broker, assuming they're the people who sold the thing.
On the second point, certainly they ought to be sure of their ground, but their judgement is irrelevant if your case is sound. They always talk tough. |
Nope. Agent (MPI) represents the Principal (Ageas) and contracts with 3rd parties on behalf of Principal. It's the Law of Agency. You are probably thinking of sale of goods.
The FOS charge £650 each time a customer takes a case to them - the first 25 cases per year are free though. Therefore if the claim is under £650 they will settle because it makes sense even if they are sure they are right. Beyond £650 they are sure of their ground. It's not even tough talking, they simply point to the policy wording and what the customer agreed to. If it is at all grey, the FOS will lean towards the customer's side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@Pruman, I'm sure that's right in normal times but I am getting the feeling that some are refusing everything and hoping for the best. I am currently engaged in a "debate" with my insurer who have told me they do not insure for costs which are recoverable elsewhere - fair enough in principle. However, they are basing their argument on an assertion that I should do a s75 claim/chargeback even though I have told them more than once I paid by BACS transfer which is not eligible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Arno, without knowing the exact nature of the claim, although I suspect it's for a non-delivered ski trip (?), your insurer would be correct. The money isn't technically an insurance loss in the same way as having your wallet stolen, you know where the money is, it just happens to be in the wrong hands. In effect it's a civil matter between you and the supplier. Either that supplier is acting illegally by ignoring the regulations or they are disputing it with you, so your recourse might just be to sue them. Lately S75 claims have been allowed for debit card transactions and a BACS transfer is simply another debit so might be worth pushing on that one.
I know insurers have been deluged with claims and will have hardened their attitude as a result. The issue there was that nearly all tour operators said "claim it on your insurance" to deflect the fact that they were themselves responsible. All this endlessly debated on the "who are the good guys" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Pruman, not quite the facts here (not going to get into further detail on these pages) but I think the insurer has assumed the situation is as you describe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
