Cedric Stephens, Contributor

Question: I insured my bus through a broker. The driver was 24 years old. He had a PPV licence for less than a year. The broker said that due to the driver's age and experience, the premium would be much higher. It amounted to $311,227. I deposited $83,000 and agreed to pay $28,401.35 per month over nine months. Three instalments were paid. The vehicle was robbed from the driver on June 6, 2007. A claim was sent to the insurance company. They refused to pay it saying that the driver could not be accommodated. I think that the broker and the insurer double-crossed me. Can you help?

- M.M., St. Catherine.

Answer: The non-life insurance industry in Jamaica is doing a poor job in employee training. This is the theme of today's article. That topic is a repeat of what I wrote about last week and the week before that.

The poor quality of training often comes to light when a claim is filed. "Young, innocent and poorly trained" employees, to use the words of a lawyer in California, are put on the front line.

Some of them have never read an insurance contract in their entire lives. Yet, they have to deal with issues that form the subject of this column each week.

Your broker has given you 'a six for a nine'. I believe that your claim was never sent to the insurance company.

Your application fell into the cracks. It probably remained hidden in the broker's office all of this time. The mistake was only discovered after you filed the claim. Perhaps it was easier to find a reason to tell you why the insurers would refuse your claim than to try to persuade them to pay after three months.

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY

The driver's age has absolutely nothing to do with the theft of the vehicle.

Your insurer's policy says under Section I - Loss or Damage to Insured Vehicle: "The Company will indemnify the Insured against loss or damage to the Motor Vehicle - (b) by fire, external explosion - burglary, house-breaking or theft."

Section I is in two parts. The first part says what is covered. The second part sets out the exclusions. None of the exceptions listed in the specimen copy of your insurer's policy limits the theft coverage in any way.

When I look at Section IX - General Exceptions - there is also nothing there. Theft is not excluded while the vehicle is being driven by a person who is 24 years old and who has been driving less than 12 months.

General exception (1)(ii)(b) comes close. But it does not exclude theft in your case.

It says: "The company shall not be liable in respect of: Any loss accident, loss damage or liability caused sustained or incurred while any motor vehicle in respect of which indemnity is provided is being driven by or for the purpose of being driven by him in the charge of any person other than an authorised driver."

GO DIRECTLY TO INSURER

Since you paid an extra premium to the broker to insure the bus because of the driver's age, the insurer could hardly be saying at this stage that your driver was not authorised.

Your claim should be paid by the insurer of the broker. I suggest that you go after the insurer first.

If I am right and the broker mislaid your application for insurance, the insurer cannot avoid your claim. Section 82 (2) of the Insurance Act, 2001 makes this very clear.

"An insurer, on whose behalf a broker has received a premium or part thereof, shall accept liability arising under the policy, not-withstanding that the insurer has not received the premium."

Go directly to the insurers. Ask them to pay your claim. In the event that they refuse, tell them to give the reasons to you in writing. If this happens, instruct your attorneys to file suit against the brokers. They should not be allowed to get away with the nonsense they told you.

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. If you need free information or counsel, write to The Financial Editor, business@gleanerjm.com, or Mr. Stephens at aegis@cwjamaica.com