UK insurance is adopting new pricing principles for personal business. While the principles recognise the sector’s pricing problem, they will not be the solution. That lies with individual insurance firms and the tough questions they now need to be asking themselves about some controversial practices.
Are conflicts of interest in insurance being taken seriously enough? It’s a question that needs to be addressed, given recent headlines. So what should insurance firms check for when it comes to being better at conflicts of interest? Here are nine suggestions.
In the midst of demanding situations and time pressures, there will be occasions when it will be important that we make a fair decision. What can we do to make this as easy and straightforward as possible? Here are two skills that will help.
The next 12 months will see the pricing practices of UK insurers put under close regulatory scrutiny. Their focus will be on dual pricing in the household market. So what should insurance firms be on the lookout for, and how might they prepare for the spotlight about to be turned on them?
The most ‘ethically questionable’ practice to have emerged out of the innovation currently transforming insurance is ‘claims optimisation’. As key pieces of accountability and data legislation go live in 2018, what should claims directors weigh up in relation to this controversial practice?
We need to think differently about trust in insurance. Digitisation makes this more important, not less. Firms need to organise their thinking, and not just leave trust to chance. If there’s a new ‘trust story’ to be told, it’s insurers who need to write it, before someone else does in their place.
There are many ethical dilemmas in insurance. And they often make people angry, and suspicious and fearful, and many other things besides. Yet that emotional side is often overlooked. Being good at ethical dilemmas can often hinge on how those emotions are handled.
Two UK insurers have been accused of charging people more for motor cover if their name was Mohammed, than if their name was John. It has been vehemently denied by people across the sector. Yet the story has attracted widespread attention. And it’s unlikely to be a one off either. Here's why.
Researchers have found clear evidence of gender bias in artificial intelligence. The growing use of AI by insurers means that the sector needs to address this quickly, in order to maintain public trust and avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Insurers have been using big data analytics to explore new underwriting techniques for several years now. Yet events are unfolding that point to the possibility of this coming under some harsh scrutiny by regulators and consumer groups.
This year could be a daunting one for some insurance people. Over the next 12 months, they’re going to have their integrity assessed. And if they fall short, their certification to practice in the sector could be affected. These four ethics courses address this problem head on.
The importance of ethics training for insurance people is going to soar over the next three years. And when I say soar, that’s no exaggeration. Insurance people are going to be weighed up and tested like never before. The main driver for this will surprise you.
Codes of ethics are important documents. Yet they can often lie unchanged for several years. Codes then acquire a rather fossilised existence, losing their influence on how people work. Here are 11 reasons why it's worth reviewing them.
Privacy in insurance has been getting lots of attention recently, largely because of the EU’s GDPR. Yet there’s a danger that this surge in legal and compliance activity will overly focus minds on the policy and process detail, while leaving scant time to think through the big privacy issues that the insurance buying public is concerned about.
Insurance pricing is undergoing a revolution, just at the time that underwriters are being held to account like never before. It’s important then for underwriters to know about the ethical issues that that accountability is built upon.
Insurance is a risky business, so the idea of an insurer making too much profit seems a bit harsh. Yet some in Australia would disagree, where profit levels on compulsory motor insurance are being hotly debated.
Insurance claims are pivotal experiences in the relationship between the insurer and the policyholder. In a series of posts, I'll be exploring the key ethical issues associated with insurance claims, starting this week with information asymmetry.
How well have insurers been managing the balance between the privacy concerns that surveillance can give rise to and the need to effective counter fraud measures? And what's in it for the insurance sector for doing so?
The practices described in the recent OFT report into motor insurance may well have led to all sorts of unintended consequences for insurers. A couple are outlined here, along with some thoughts relating to a central issue for consumers: fairness.
A more detailed analysis of the ethics of what the OFT found when investigating motor insurance claims. Are referral fees unethical? How did corporate cultures appear to leave ethics by the wayside? The FSA and MoJ have some questions to ask, of individuals, insurers and themselves.
What should insurers do to resolve the question of who will own the data created by their use of telematics in products like motor? One particular step might make a real difference, if handled properly.
The new Investing in Integrity charter mark has much to commend it, but will, like many of those before it, face some challenges. Greater transparency around the results of its accreditation would be a worthwhile step.
The transparency of price comparison websites has come under renewed scrutiny. The way in which their assumptions are often pitched is raising questions about who's interests are being put first. The new Act makes addressing such concerns more important than ever.
The Dodd Frank Act in the US has introduced a bounty system for whistleblowers who provide the SEC with original information that leads to a successful prosecution. What sort of ethical questions does this raise? And might the SFO adopt such an approach here in the UK?
The recent sacking of Swinton's entire executive board raises just as many questions about Covea's responsibilities as it does about those director's responsibilities. There are conflicts of interest here at several layers.
Survey finds that less than 10% of companies in the FTSE100 report on their ethical performance. Those in the insurance and financial services sectors have good reason to make sure they're amongst that that do.
The launch of a new landmine charity is to be applauded, but its supporters from the insurance and broking community need to reflect on any association they may have with companies who manufacture ordnance of similar indiscriminatory effect, cluster bombs being the most obvious example.
The insurance sector is associated with jurisdictions that are being labelled as 'secretive'. It should expect to face greater scrutiny and more demanding questions about its involvement there. Insurers would do well to put this issue on their ethical radars.