Efforts to control motor insurance claims

Three years ago, the General Insurance Association, representing the general insurance companies, announced several measures under the the Motor Claims Framework, as an attempt to control claims. I felt at that time that the measures were not practical and did not address the root of the problem. The regulator gave its support for the framework. The insurance leaders proclaimed that the measures would be effective in controlling the fraudulent claims and lower the insurance premiums.

It was a pipe dream. The measures actually caused the claims to escalate badly. The premium rates increased by 30% during the next two years. There is a big difference between declaration of intent and producing the actual results.

Two years later, the Consumer Association (CASE)  formed a joint task force with the insurance association. They approached the problem more holistically. The task force was lead by the president of CASE who was supposed to have the political clout. The joint task force identified the problems and recommended the remedial actions. This time round, it appeared that the measures would be more effective.

I read a news report recently, quoting the president of CASE, that seemed to hint of slow progress in stopping the escalation of claims. Are the measures recommended by the joint task force ineffective?

Over the years, we hear of countless cases of fraudulent motor claims involving aggravated damages, inflated repair bills, and claims for non-existent injuries. Complaints about fraud were not acted by the police. The insurance companies were supposed to deal with the fraud by rejecting the claims,  but they need evidence to justify their rejection.  With time, the insurance companies found that it was easier to pay off the fraudulent claims rather than to incur the expense of investigating these claims.

 Fraud has to be controlled by legislation and enforcement. It cannot be handled by expensive litigation through the courts. The parties that benefited from this unsatisfactory state of affairs are the lawyers, who have the opportunity to earn large fees from litigation work. Someone pointed out that a few members of our parliament or their immediate family members are involved in law firms. Could this be a reason for their reluctance to address this issue of public interest?

In the absence of effective action, the consumers have to pay the price through higher insurance premuims.

Tan Kin Lian