A client who thought he was paying too much for run-off insurance blamed his adviser and complained to dispute resolution service FSCL.
Andrew joined a professional group and signed-up to its professional indemnity insurance scheme in 2016 – paying a lower premium than he had previously. In 2023 he retired and asked his adviser to arrange professional indemnity run-off cover.
However, Andrew wasn’t happy believing the excess and premium for the run-off cover were excessive. In addition, he thought the adviser should have obtained quotes from other professional indemnity insurers when they first placed the insurance cover in 2016, again when rolling over the insurance, and in 2023 when arranging run-off cover.
Andrew lodged a complaint with his adviser asking for compensation of $10,000 – because it “felt right”. The adviser rejected the claim, so Andrew took it up with dispute resolution service FSCL.
FSCL states: “It seemed to us that Andrew was prompted to complain because he thought that the run-off insurance was too expensive and that the adviser should have negotiated a better deal.
“We explained to Andrew that the adviser had no option but to arrange run-off cover with the existing insurer.
“To our knowledge, no insurer will provide run-off cover if they have not previously been the professional indemnity insurer. Although Andrew considered that the insurer’s excess and premiums were too high, these factors were outside the adviser’s control.”
FSCL also states the adviser showed it they had benchmarked the cost of the insurance provided to the professional group against what was available in the industry for the 2017/2018 year, and again for the 2021/2022 year, and was satisfied the insurance available to the group members was competitively priced.
“There was nothing to suggest that the cover recommended was inappropriate or that the adviser had caused Andrew any loss,” stated FSCL in its findings. It recommended Andrew discontinue his complaint.