Combined Insurance

schnurbart

Hi has anybody on here got any experience dealing with these guys?

I took out one of their accident policies when a rep called to my house some years ago recently had to put in a claim. It goes something like this.....

Got an injury (severe neck). I'm self employed & can't do my job as a result. So I filled in a claim form and several enquiries later was told that it would take 20 working days to process. I expressed my disapointment at this but well sometimes ya just gotta wait. ( I did however point out to them that their sales rep wanted a cheque from me on 'our first date'. They were quick enough to take my money.)

Anyhow 20 days later they sent me a letter (I thought 'great... here's my much needed cheque). But to my disappointment it was another claim form with a letter explaining that my GP had forgotten to tick one of the boxes....

I then asked them how long it would take to process this correction & was told another 20 days. I explained that this seemed very unreasonable as I had already waited 20 days just to be told this & that it all seemed very........... well lets just say odd.

I'm not going to suggest what seems to be happening here but was wondering has anyone on here had any dealings with this crowd.

Thanks

Schnurbart

dudara

Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

dudara

schnurbart

thanks

eagle_i

In fairness Schnurbart there is a claim process and if it takes 20 days or so, that's it! If your doctor failed to complete the insurance form correctly, then take it up with your doctor. Alternatively, if you not satisfied ask combined insurance for their complaints procedure and make a formal complaint. They are required to acknowledge your complaint within a week/10 days and subsequently complete their investigation into your complaint and respond to you within a further 30 days. If at the end of this you are still not satisfied with the out come of your complaint you can then take it to the Insurance Ombudsman.

schnurbart

I understand that it may take up to 20 working days to process a claim but another 20 working days to process a simple mistake is a a little slow in my opinion.( I was told another 20 days on the phone) That's 40 working days (2 months effectively) in total. I was told that when I took out the policy that these things are sorted immediately. Anyway we'll see how it goes. I'm hearing very negative reports so we'll see how it goes.
Thanks for the help as well & I'll keep you informed.

Quark1

U will be fine honestly, i had very good experience with them when the claim is opened they look after u!!!
I think all insurances work under the same rules so just hang in there!!:D

i used them several times and looked after me very well! Just make sure u keep copies and registre post!!

Q

Kennie1

Worked for this company for three years. Could not take the complaints from clients so had to quit even though i was making good money.

Problem was, it seemed to be like a lottery who got paid their claim. Some clients got paid almost instantly while others would have to wait for up to 12 months depending on there claim. When I left a client rang me about a claim for testicular cancer, they had cover with a major life company and they paid out within 1 month while it took CICE 9 months and a letter from a solictitor, they kept on asking for further info froma the doctor. They seem to try and delay claim's as much as possible with the hope that the client will get fed up!. Make sure you keep a copy of everything you send in and register any post, try to use email instead of the phone so you have a full record of any conversation's that take place and register any post

I would susggest taking out a Permenent Health Policy through a reputable broker as it covers both accident and sickness as well as that you can get tax relief on your premiums however some occupations are not covered, otherwise the broker may be able to provide accident insurance from a major life company. I would susggest using a major one as it is in there interest's to pay claims as they dont need the bad press of not paying claims.

oldyouth

Quark1 wrote: »

U will be fine honestly, i had very good experience with them when the claim is opened they look after u!!!
I think all insurances work under the same rules so just hang in there!!:D

i used them several times and looked after me very well! Just make sure u keep copies and registre post!!

Q

Why would you use a product like this several times. Only one post from this contributor, I'll say no miore

Confuzzzed

oldyouth wrote: »

Why would you use a product like this several times. Only one post from this contributor, I'll say no miore

The reason you would use a product like this is simply because you can!! Accidents are not one off occurances. Not all aspects of the policy would be required for every claim. As the premium is NOT affected by age or claims made it's a very desireable product to hold. All bebefits are tax free so when you get your money it's yours. Also, you do not need to prove your income like you do with every other insurance company.

While claims can take a while for whatever reason it is def worth it when you do get paid out.

oldyouth

Confuzzzed wrote: »

The reason you would use a product like this is simply because you can!! Accidents are not one off occurances. Not all aspects of the policy would be required for every claim. As the premium is NOT affected by age or claims made it's a very desireable product to hold. All bebefits are tax free so when you get your money it's yours. Also, you do not need to prove your income like you do with every other insurance company.

While claims can take a while for whatever reason it is def worth it when you do get paid out.

I'm not dissing the value of such a policy, I was commenting on the remark that someone would use this insurer several times. This is a policy you usually take out once and renew it annually. With it being the only post from the contributer, it sounded like spam

Kennie1

Confuzzzed wrote: »

The reason you would use a product like this is simply because you can!! Accidents are not one off occurances. Not all aspects of the policy would be required for every claim. As the premium is NOT affected by age or claims made it's a very desireable product to hold. All bebefits are tax free so when you get your money it's yours. Also, you do not need to prove your income like you do with every other insurance company.

While claims can take a while for whatever reason it is def worth it when you do get paid out.

Confuzzed do you work for this company if so declare your intrerest... I think you will find if you read the policy documents for some of the policies e.g. sickness income and accident disability plus, you do need to declare your income as benefits are defined by income limits also note that all claims are noted on the Insurance Claims Register which is available to all insurance companies... I took this snipet out of the Irish Independent Sat 18/09/10
"Owned by US insurance giant Ace, Combined is a major player in the "accident and illness" market, specialising in hospital benefit, sickness income plans and accidental disability plans.
The business hit the headlines earlier in the year following revelations of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman about its selling practices.
The family of a 77-year-old farmer claimed he had been sold nine unnecessary policies over a 15-year period and had eventually put up barbed wire to keep out Combined's sales agent."
Need I say anymore!!!

Confuzzzed

Kennie1 wrote: »

Confuzzed do you work for this company if so declare your intrerest... I think you will find if you read the policy documents for some of the policies e.g. sickness income and accident disability plus, you do need to declare your income as benefits are defined by income limits also note that all claims are noted on the Insurance Claims Register which is available to all insurance companies... I took this snipet out of the Irish Independent Sat 18/09/10
"Owned by US insurance giant Ace, Combined is a major player in the "accident and illness" market, specialising in hospital benefit, sickness income plans and accidental disability plans.
The business hit the headlines earlier in the year following revelations of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman about its selling practices.
The family of a 77-year-old farmer claimed he had been sold nine unnecessary policies over a 15-year period and had eventually put up barbed wire to keep out Combined's sales agent."

Need I say anymore!!!

Well as an agent of the company in previous years i think you know only too well how the company operates. I am going to say that i am not now nor ever a sales rep/manager for the company. I do, or did work for them.

As you said above you do need to disclose your income for the purpose of purchasing those prticular products. As you also are aware though, that is the only time your income is required. It does not need to be proved at any stage throughout the sales or claims process. It is supposed to be used to ensure the customer can afford the product in question & to accertain the right level of cover is sold.

I completely agree with your last sentence about the farmer & know this to be true of other customers also. Sales agents, most of the time, never disclosed thier reasons for calling to customers.This has lead to wide spread complaints, which until recent months, were not been taken as seriously as it should have been. However, i do not agree the cover he had was unnecessary. He upgraded current cover held. While he was more than probably unaware of his 'adding-on' to his original cover he would have, if needed, been able to claim on that cover. I'm know you know this practice of 'tacking-on' and you prob will agree that most customers were taken advantage of.

Having said all that, I do think the products being sold are very beneficial to have.

Kennie1

Confuzzzed the reason I asked is that you seem to have a unique knowledge of the products and the lingo that the reps use...?

I am not disputing the value of holding product's like these at all and I would also think that the vast majority of customers were aware they were increasing their cover whilst I would agree that some may not have been fully aware. I copied the statement from the Indo, it is not for me to say whether it was right or wrong that the person was sold too many policies only the regulator will make that judgment!

What I can say is, it was my understanding that Combined brought in a "Needs Statement" at the request of the Financial Regulator back in '04 or '05, in this "Assessment" the recommendation was based on the clients income. You are certainly right when you say you don't need to prove your income at any time through the claims process but in some cases clients were being sold way over the recommended level, and Combined actually refunded the premiums for the "over coverage" at claims stage. The limits on client benefits were set by the Financial Regulator or at least that what CICE told its reps. Your original point was flawed and that is why I commented on your post, as other companies do not impose income limits for Serious Illness Cover and Hospital Cash Cover which happens to be CICE biggest sellers in annual premium terms. Yes other companies do impose income limits usually 40-50% of gross income for accident cover and 75% on gross income for PHI but so does CICE at point of sale.

Look my whole point is that CICE have a poor track record in customer service when it comes to claims. Yes they do eventually pay but this is not good enough, Its customers money that pays their wages Its customers money that drives their profits and its the customers that pays the claims so why not pay in a timely and courteous manner and then we would not be commenting on this forum!!!

oldyouth

Clos4630 wrote: »

some reps can pull over 75k per year not bad with just one weeks training when most people Go to college for years and don't earn that much

Sorry, but this is a serious insurance product with many terms, conditions and exclusions. You're saying people are being asked to put their future financial security in to the hands of someone with no previous insurance experience and 1 week's training!!!!!

At least the people who go to college are likely to know what they are talking about

Disgraceful if true

Kennie1

Sorry, but this is a serious insurance product with many terms, conditions and exclusions. You're saying people are being asked to put their future financial security in to the hands of someone with no previous insurance experience and 1 week's training!!!!!

At least the people who go to college are likely to know what they are talking about

Disgraceful if true[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more oldyouth. Although the company would say ongoing training is provided. I must have been totally thick... as I got 2 weeks training... lmao:D!!!

Yes Clos4630 is right in saying that some of the worst offenders were rehighered as salaried managers a few weeks ago and I have this on good authority (unbeliveable!). Retraining agents for a week or two and sacking half the agents is not going to solve CICE problems. In my humble opinion education, regulation and compliance is the only way to address the press reported issues.

By the way Clos4630 selfemployed are entilted to claim jobseekers allowance which is "means tested" this may take some time though, but they are not entilted to claim job seekers benefit which is not means tested as self employed pay class S PRSI 7% instead of employee class A PRSI 8%... and this knowledge comes from being suitably educated in my chosen field:p

Kennie1

A friend has a accident hospital policy with Combined insurance. He was involved in a RTA a few months ago and fractured his wrist and leg and was kept in hospital for one night, he claimed off his policy for one nights hospitalization and also major fracture benefit. He received his claim cheque promptly with a letter stating that the claim was settled and final.

Unfortunately there was complications with the fracture to his leg and he developed a severe blood clot about 6 weeks after the accident and had to go into hospital again for further treatment, he spent a further 18 days in hospital.

When he came home he contacted Combined Insurance to get a claim form but was told that he was not eligible to claim as the hospitalization was not “continuous” i.e. because he was discharged the following day after the accident, he could not claim again for the second period of hospitalization. Below is the relevant paragraph from the Terms and Conditions

HOSPITAL IN-PATIENT - ANY ACCIDENT
SECTION A

“If the bodily injury shall be sustained by the insured and shall be within 90 days from the date of the accident causing the bodily injury be the sole cause of the insured being continuously confined as a in patient and provided the bodily injury shall occur” in this case “ By being STRUCK or KNOCKED DOWN or RUN OVER ”

Am I missing something here but if the person goes into the hospital within the 90 day’s should they not be eligible to claim under the above terms. I have read the rest of the terms and there is no other relevant paragraph or exclusion to say the contrary.
Any thoughts, opnions or comments welcome please

eagle_i

Kennie1 wrote: »

A friend has a accident hospital policy with Combined insurance. He was involved in a RTA a few months ago and fractured his wrist and leg and was kept in hospital for one night, he claimed off his policy for one nights hospitalization and also major fracture benefit. He received his claim cheque promptly with a letter stating that the claim was settled and final.

Unfortunately there was complications with the fracture to his leg and he developed a severe blood clot about 6 weeks after the accident and had to go into hospital again for further treatment, he spent a further 18 days in hospital.

When he came home he contacted Combined Insurance to get a claim form but was told that he was not eligible to claim as the hospitalization was not “continuous” i.e. because he was discharged the following day after the accident, he could not claim again for the second period of hospitalization. Below is the relevant paragraph from the Terms and Conditions

HOSPITAL IN-PATIENT - ANY ACCIDENT
SECTION A

“If the bodily injury shall be sustained by the insured and shall be within 90 days from the date of the accident causing the bodily injury be the sole cause of the insured being continuously confined as a in patient and provided the bodily injury shall occur” in this case “ By being STRUCK or KNOCKED DOWN or RUN OVER ”

Am I missing something here but if the person goes into the hospital within the 90 day’s should they not be eligible to claim under the above terms. I have read the rest of the terms and there is no other relevant paragraph or exclusion to say the contrary.
Any thoughts, opnions or comments welcome please

This is not my area so can't answer your query. Just a one question:

What is the definition of 'continuous' under the policy terms?

I suspect it may mean that it only covers in the event of one in-patient hospitalisation period and not multiple periods of hospitalisations. Once you are checked out and claimed for the first hospitalisation period, that's it! Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you need to clarify whether to the policy covers multiple hospitalisation periods and their definition of continuous.

If your friend feels he is being unfairly treated, I think the only course of action is to make a formal complaint, following this if he is unsatisfied with the out come of the insurer's investigation he can then raise the issue with the insurance ombudsman.

Kennie1

eagle_i wrote: »

This is not my area so can't answer your query. Just a one question:

What is the definition of 'continuous' under the policy terms?

I suspect it may mean that it only covers in the event of one in-patient hospitalisation period and not multiple periods of hospitalisations. Once you are checked out and claimed for the first hospitalisation period, that's it! Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you need to clarify whether to the policy covers multiple hospitalisation periods and their definition of continuous.

If your friend feels he is being unfairly treated, I think the only course of action is to make a formal complaint, following this if he is unsatisfied with the out come of the insurer's investigation he can then raise the issue with the insurance ombudsman.

There is no "definitions" section in the policy doc so this cannot be clarified . I have read the T&Cs cover to cover and it does not state whether it covers one or mulitiple stays in the hospital within the 90 day period of the accident, and there be the problem. I have asked a few people what their interpretation of the terms are and they were of the opnion that once the hospitalization was within the 90 days that the claim was valid but they did comment that the "continuous" word was very confusing. I have a letter of complaint prepared for him to send in, but I have asked Combined's underwriters to review the claim before we send in the letter so should be interesting to see what their reply will be.

eagle_i

Hi Kennie,
Perhaps ask Combined for clarification/definition of the term 'continuous'. Also, ask them to clarify whether the policy covers for a single/multiple hospital stays within the 90 day period? It is best to get this in writing and request them to demonstrate where the above is defined under the T&C's the policy.

Kennie1

eagle_i wrote: »

Hi Kennie,
Also, ask them to clarify whether the policy covers for a single/multiple hospital stays within the 90 day period? It is best to get this in writing and request them to demonstrate where the above is defined under the T&C's the policy.

Good point, will do.

Spoke to them again this morning and they are still waiting for a responce from their claims department. I spoke to some of their sales staff yesterday and they confirmed that they would sell the product on the basis of it covering multiple stays in hospital within the 90 day period. Their understanding of the "continuous" phrase was if the insured was kept over the 90 days inthe hospital if you get my meaning

Kennie1

Kennie1 wrote: »

A friend has a accident hospital policy with Combined insurance. He was involved in a RTA a few months ago and fractured his wrist and leg and was kept in hospital for one night, he claimed off his policy for one nights hospitalization and also major fracture benefit. He received his claim cheque promptly with a letter stating that the claim was settled and final.

Unfortunately there was complications with the fracture to his leg and he developed a severe blood clot about 6 weeks after the accident and had to go into hospital again for further treatment, he spent a further 18 days in hospital.

When he came home he contacted Combined Insurance to get a claim form but was told that he was not eligible to claim as the hospitalization was not “continuous” i.e. because he was discharged the following day after the accident, he could not claim again for the second period of hospitalization. Below is the relevant paragraph from the Terms and Conditions

HOSPITAL IN-PATIENT - ANY ACCIDENT
SECTION A

“If the bodily injury shall be sustained by the insured and shall be within 90 days from the date of the accident causing the bodily injury be the sole cause of the insured being continuously confined as a in patient and provided the bodily injury shall occur” in this case “ By being STRUCK or KNOCKED DOWN or RUN OVER ”

Am I missing something here but if the person goes into the hospital within the 90 day’s should they not be eligible to claim under the above terms. I have read the rest of the terms and there is no other relevant paragraph or exclusion to say the contrary.
Any thoughts, opnions or comments welcome please

Rang Combined today after ringing them everyday this week to keep up the pressure. They said today that they would accept the claim and would issue the cheque within the next 7 days:D.

When I asked why the client was gave wrong information and told he could not claim for the second period of hospitalization, the customer service rep could not answer:mad:

As per my previous posts in this thread, I belive the product is good and so are the vast majority of its sales agents, just a pity that the customer service/claims dept lets them down. In this case if my freind did not know someone with my back ground he would have let this go there and then, and would have lost €11500.00 as a result:(

TrustNoOne

Kennie1 wrote: »

As per my previous posts in this thread, I belive the product is good and so are the vast majority of its sales agents,

I worked for them before, and I can assure you, the vast majority of the successful reps are the most disgusting, hungry, miserable hounds I ever had the displeasure of being even briefly associated with. They pray for their clients to break a leg so they can get their friends insured also.

And no, I'm not being bitter about the fact I didn't last too long. It takes a certain breed.

Blackjack

TrustNoOne wrote: »

I worked for them before, and I can assure you, the vast majority of the successful reps are the most disgusting, hungry, miserable hounds I ever had the displeasure of being even briefly associated with. They pray for their clients to break a leg so they can get their friends insured also.

And no, I'm not being bitter about the fact I didn't last too long. It takes a certain breed.

Did you get the, "May I read this, if I may, May I" training?.

Mate of mine did that once, we had a good giggle at some of the lines he was supposed to use.

PrivateIdaho

Everybody was fired (including the managers who falsified signatures on DD mandates) and yet they were all rehired.
I worked with one of the managers in question who used to sell to hard working farmers who, how shall I put it?? .. Lacked formal education.

I remember driving up to one farm in Mullingar and he quite confidently stated that "this f***ing eejit will buy anything from me.. this is the bread and butter".
He sold several policies to the Father, the mother and 2 children. He gave me a cut by putting my name on two of the dockets and I made nearly €400 for doing nothing.
We went to a remote pub and got pissed for the rest of the day.
This was the way he lived and unfortunately, I got sucked in for a year.

Confuzzzed

COMBINED UK/NORTHERN IRELAND IS NO LONGER IN OPERATION!!!!!!!!!!

Combined Uk closed up shop Wed last!! I thought Combined Ireland would be first to go but it still remains.

I mustsay what a pity it is that the company was left to reach this state. The products they have could and have helped so so many people. The accident hospital policy still remains unbeatable by ANY other insurance company throughout Ireland.

Having worked with this company i have seen all the negative and disgraceful behaviour carried out on normal everyday people. I would just like to say that not ALL of the agents were bad apples & some of us did actually try to right the wrongs of those particular apples. Unfortunately the rotten to the core apples were/are sitting out of reach of the fresh crop and it proved to be impossible to try protect the unsuspecting customers.

The Central Bank formerly the Financial regulator stepped in and there was a glimmer of hope in harvesting the rotten fruit. Instead, what happened was fresh rotten friut were deployed into the top rankings of the company and they continued the old routines in new ways while restricting the fresh friut even further.

What has happened now id that the rotten friut have found new trees and have left the combined fields to begin new growth in the same industry. So what now? Same rotten apples doing a new job under the very same rottn DR's & Regionals that flew to grenner pastures. Who is going to fix this problem? How long will it take to follow this trail? How many new customers will be caught up by these apples??

I am disgusted that it has come to this.

oldyouth

So, we're talking about something that is 'great' sold by rotten apples using disgraceful behaviour and you worked alongside these people and I'm reading this post all the way to the end and..................... Sorry, I drifted off there

Kennie1

Thought it was worth dragging up this old thread as this story is related.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1219/breaking25.html

The Central Bank has fined an insurance firm a record sum of €3.35 million after it uncovered 28 breaches of regulatory guidelines.
The fine against Combined Insurance Company of Europe Limited relates to consumer protection failures which the Central Bank said not only caused “detriment to a firm’s customers but also erode the special trust customers place in regulated firms”.
The insurer was said to have allowed unregistered tied agents to sell insurance policies on its behalf, to have wrongly obtained customers’ bank account details and used them to set up policies in other peoples’ names; and to have failed to ensure that staff handling complaints had the necessary qualifications.
Some tied agents of the firm were said to have “recklessly, negligently and deliberately misled customers” as to the real or perceived advantages of the firm’s products.
The agents were also said to have exerted undue pressure on customers to purchase policies and to have failed to recommend the most suitable products to consumers.
The Central Bank said the firm established a remuneration and rewards system for its tied agents which led to the creation of a high pressure sales environment.
The breaches of the rules occurred between August 2006 and April of this year and some €560,000 has already been refunded to customers.
“The penalty imposed demonstrates that we will not tolerate breaches of this nature,” the Central Bank said.
“Insurance companies can cause significant consumer detriment through mis-selling, through their remuneration arrangements and having inadequate systems and controls. The level of consumer detriment in this case arising from the firm’s non-compliance and behaviour, will not be tolerated by the Central Bank.”
The UK Financial Services Authority has also fined the company £2.8 million (€3.3 million) for not effectively managing its sales processes or how it handled claims and complaints.
The €3.35 million penalty exceeds the previous record €3.25 million fine handed to Quinn Insurance for lending money to the Quinn family to cover losses on their investment in Anglo Irish Bank in 2008.
The Central Bank ordered Combined Insurance to stopping selling policies to new customers in April. The company specialised in insuring customers against accidents. It had a small staff and sold policies mostly through sales brokers.

The company is owned by Ace Insurance, which is based in Switzerland and Bermuda and listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It is part of the Ace Group of companies.

Combined Insurance Company of Europe made a profit of €8.5 million in 2010 on gross written premiums of €76 million, a decline of 16 per cent on the previous year.

The directors are listed on records at the Companies Registration Office as Ian Moffatt (who is chief executive), Michael Trainor, Dermot Gorman and Michael Greene who have addresses in Dublin, and Chris Harrison, Abraham Hollenberg and Duncan Green who have addresses in England.
In a statement, Combined Insurance Company of Europe said it had taken decisive action to correct the issues raised by appointing a new board of directors and management team, improving processes and controls and suspending new sales.
“We take our corporate governance and regulatory responsibilities seriously and accept responsibility for past practices,” it said. “The company is strong financially and committed to serving all its existing policyholders, including the renewal of policies and the ongoing payment of claims.”

RossieGooner

I am delighted that the authorities have finally caught up with this outfit.

I had the misfortune of having no alternative but to try to work for them for a time a couple of years back. As a previous poster said, the managers and senior people are or were the worst offenders in a lot of cases. I left as i could not stand being constantly encouraged by managers to perform my duties in, lets say, not a manner that sat well with me. The practices and attitudes among them in relation to clients and potential clients was disgraceful. Bottom line was get them signed up n fook them after that, until you can go back and sign up further "business", as they termed it.

Needs forced me to work for them but i regret it ever since. I rarely tell anyone anymore that i worked for them, such is my shame at being involved with them.

elaverty

First stop in the morning will be to the bank to stop a few direct debits me thinks,,,,:mad: :mad: :mad: