Thought we might gather up some interesting snippets of insurance related news from around the globe.
US BUSINESS OWNERS RUSH FOR RIOT COVER
The election result will be bad news for many cities across the USA, as activists and looters are no doubt planning to party long into the night if Trump wins. By party, we mean burn down buildings, attack the Police and shoot anyone wearing a MAGA hat. That grim reality has prompted many business owners and large companies to close their shops, barricade their retail premises and take out civil unrest and riot coverage. Who can blame them?
Civil unrest hit global insurers’ results during the second quarter. Zurich Insurance reported $122 million in civil unrest losses, mainly from the United States, while American International Group Inc posted $126 million in such losses and the Travelers Companies Inc $91 million. Premiums can only head upwards as democracy is rejected by a hardcore minority who see no reason to accept a vote, unless it suits their own agenda.
There are more details from Reuters here.
An insurance broker was sentenced to 41 months in jail for using a hairdryer on her boyfriend’s private parts and poured boiling water onto his thighs. Mak Hoi-ching, aged 39, was convicted of four counts of wounding with intent by deputy district judge June Cheung Tin-ngan for attacking her 32-year-old boyfriend. More details if you can stand to read further here.
Marshmallow has raised more funding for its portable insurance product. Initially launched to help expats obtain car insurance, which can be difficult when using International Driving Licences etc, Marshmallow is looking to expand from its core base. Some $30m in extra funding has been secured from an unnamed source and Marshamllow are hinting that those drivers with poor credit scores may be part of their strategy to make car insurance more inclusive.
A court had to decide if an insurance broker that was 100% owned by an insurer was actually independent or not. Tricky one. The case came down to the nitty-gritty of advertising claims, which does make for interesting reading. There is a detailed summary of the case on an International Law site here.