Login / Join
The great Professional Indemnity Insurance controversy
I have had the benefit of reading the statement made by the CEO of the MIA this afternoon concerning the comparison of the Professional Indemnity Insurance offered by MIA's insurer (Fenton Green) as opposed to that offered by Migration Alliance's insurer (BizCover). The statement was sent by the CEO to MIA members by way of email. Many of those members are joint members of Migration Alliance.
I think it is fair to say that both products are compliant in terms of the OMARA requirement of Professional Indemnity.
What I do not accept is that the Fenton Green product is superior in terms of its coverage, excess and the like, as opposed to the Bizcover product endorsed by Migration Alliance. However, what I do know is that RMAs are interested in a compliant product at a reasonable price.
Of course only the PDS released by the insurers can settle the whole "this is comparing apples with oranges" argument which at this stage is entirely speculative.
I seriously doubt that commentary or a comparison of prices is likely to result in action by ASIC or any other corporate regulator, and to assert a breach of consumer law is unlikely to shut down the very human instinct to get more bang for your buck, particularly in light of the already considerable expense associated with the compliance component of every RMAs practice. RMAs may wish to read the MA terms and conditions on this website, in particular the disclaimer when considering whether the articles constitute 'advice'.
I am sure that solicitors would be very jealous of the relatively cheap cost of RMA Professional Indemnity Insurance compared to their own insurances, which can routinely run to $40K per annum.
As far as I am aware the "quote" referred to in the article was provided by the insurer following an approach by a consumer seeking coverage. I also requested a quote today and I published the results of the quote I was given on the blog.
Putting aside all of the hurt feelings and speculation, I know that RMAs want value for money and I am certain that the information in the article serves to inform RMAs as consumers, who in turn are clever enough to assess their own risk profile, to mitigate those risks, and to buy conforming insurance that meets their particular needs.
Migration Alliance is all about protecting and advocating the interests of its members and it will continue to do so in the face of vague references to regulatory oversight, and the potential for another organisation to have its feelings hurt.
