The saga of Hurricane Melissa insurance payout delays

THE EDITOR, Madam:
The Financial Services Commission (FSC) stated in a recent public statement about insurance claims arising from Hurricane Melissa that as ‘part of its enhanced supervisory response’ to that event, it has, among other things, “commenced a focused review of issues arising from the application of the ‘average’ clause in cases of underinsurance”.
The so-called ‘focused review’ is a red herring. As members of the FSC executive team (and insurance company leaders and their lobby group, The Insurance Association of Jamaica) should know, lawmakers provided guidance in The Insurance Act, 2001, on how (a) insurers should apply this unpopular policy provision and (b) FSC must supervise the industry in relation to this part of the law.
Section 120 (1) of The Insurance Act says that “where a contract of insurance contains a pro rata condition of average (its technical name), the condition is of no effect unless before the contract is entered into, the insurer informs the insured in the prescribed manner of the nature and effect of the condition. (2) This section shall not apply in respect of a contract entered into before the appointed day”.  
Insurer compliance initially involved notifying each policyholder individually about the clause and how it would be applied in the event of a claim. Subsequently, the notification took the form of collective notices issued by the IAJ on behalf of its general or non-life members to all policyholders. The notices are published in daily newspapers at periodic intervals, presumably with the FSC’s permission.   
Delays in the settlement of claims arising from Hurricane Melissa are because of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the application of the average clause.  Conflating the two issues highlights the absence of insurance subject-matter expertise within the FSC, a point discussed in my July 10 Financial Gleaner article.

CEDRIC STEPHENS