Who pays the bank’s mistakes on fire insurance?
Do you have fire insurance on your home? If a fire occurs, who pays the bank’s mistakes on fire insurance?
Generally speaking, the working class will always dream to have a roof over their heads. In order to archive the goal, they toil hard from dawn to sunset. In fact, some even do moonlight on several jobs in a day. They save every single penny to purchase their 1st home. They called the modern Zombie living merely eat and sleep. In the same manner, they come out to face the sunshine when they save enough to make the 10% or even 30% down payment for their dream property. Are they happy? Please read on.
Insured’s Call when the bank’s mistakes on fire Insurance
“Mr. Jamin, how come your insurer sent my fire insurance policy to the old address? The building had already demolished.” my relative called me during a fine morning after having my morning 10.00 break.
“Let me check first, I shall call you later.”
“What is the policy number you are referring to? I asked her.
“I do not have such a policy number, could it be you taking a loan from a bank. It arranged the fire insurance on your behalf.”
Yes, it is correct the bank already auto debit my account for the past 3 years on this shophouse.” she answered me with a soft tone.
I was on my way back home on a routine visit to the hospital. I dropped by to read their policy, shocking to find out that the bank for the 3 years making the same imbecile mistake.
Classification of Risk On Fire Insurance by the Bank
Who pays the Bank’s mistakes on fire insurance?
As per attachment here, the policy stating the building is vacant and occupied also the sum insured. But, in fact, it occupied as a shop doing retaining business. Dear readers, let us ponder how could such an inexcusable error made by the bank?
Again, which risk is higher? Is it the vacant shop house or retailer? The answer is crystal clear the retailing business attracts many customers, thus the higher the risk compared with the unoccupied building.
In actual fact, for the vacant risk, the insured pays a lesser premium, higher premium for the retailer shop house. Occurring of fire razed the building to ash, will the insurer pay? The Principle of Utmost good faith shall apply to whom. Is the bank or the insured? In the final analysis, the insurer would deny such a claim.
Insurable Interest On House Fire Insurance
In brief, Malaysia is a unique country with a different rule and regulation. Thus, the local bank also operated a subsidiary composite insurance to insured its risk. In this scenario, as if the bank taking out the money from the right pocket and transfer to its left pocket. It could be a general or life insurance. Despite the Bank Negara Malaysia gave warning to the bank stating it could not force the borrower to buy fire insurance with them. Nevertheless, it has fallen to a deaf ear, either the bank is greedy to make an excess profit out from the borrower or the insured is very ignorant.
In the same token do bank has any insurable interest in the building when giving out housing loan? Does the bank suffer any financial loss without the building? Absolutely not, the bank suffers loss in the event of borrower default payment. Even the building raze to the ground, the bank suffers no loss as long as you keep paying the loan repayment.
Creditor Insurance for the Borrower
The insured is still continuing paying the installment even without the existence of the building. The bank providing the credit to the borrower, the bank should issue the creditor’s insurance to the borrower. In the event, the borrower passed away, the bank would suffer the financial loss, as it has insurance interest on the loan amount, not on the building.
The Malaysian ringgit has depreciated against the US dollars about 30-35% coupling with 6% of SST implemented on 1st September 2018. It was inadequate to cover the building that brought from the developer in 2014. The purchase price was RM350 000.00 and the loan amount was RM244 000.00. In 2017, the bank still insured the same amount as before without any upward adjustment. No inflation for the past 3 years in Malaysia? Even the kid knows the answer. When a claim occurs, the average rule of the insurance law would apply. People would say insurer always conned the insured. To sum up, who is the culprit for this mishap?
For the benefit of the layman, it means that if you insured your property of RM500K less the land price of RM 100K from the developer. In fact, the Material cost has risen to a total of 30% over a span of 5 years period. In the event of a claim on total or partial loss of the building, the insurer pays for the 70% final settlement, you absorbed the balance of 30% as your act as own insurer.
You like my article
Please share it out with your friend or family member. Sharing is joy doubles. Welcome any suggestion and comment.Snippet not selected.