Parliamentary Connections

Reform of insurance contract law is long overdue. Relying on the Marine Insurance Act 1906 as the legal basis of all modern day insurance contracts - life and general - is just plain daft. It has long since ceased to be fit for purpose and modern day practice ignores it. All of this is accepted by the insurance industry.
So, what happens when there is a chance of reforming it and bringing at least some of it into the 21st century? Answer: the industry, at least the form of the Association of British Insurers, spurns the opportunity. Surprised? shocked? I certainly was and so were members of the All Party Group when they heard the ABI's reaction to the Law Commission proposals this morning.
The Law Commission's proposals are hardly a surprise and seem a very reasonable response to the weight of evidence it had from the industry and consumers.
What is proposed is a sensible modification of the utmost good faith principles for personal lines insurance. The Commission wants to remove any remaining sense of obligation that might linger for consumers to answer questions that haven't been asked. It then wants claims to be paid to "honest and reasonable" consumers even when a mistake has been made, that mistake itself also being subject to the "honest and reasonable" test. No more hiding behind irrelevant or minor non-disclosure.
If the consumer has been "careless" (again, the Commission's word), then the claim should be treated as if the correct information had been given at the policy inception; and, if the claimant, is dishonest, the claim should be declined.
Many would say this regime should provide a welcome degree of certainty based on no more than best current practice in the market. Instead, the ABI pleaded that it should be left the a combination of the Financial Services Authority (and its Treating Customers Fairly regime) and the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is hard to think of a combination that would generate more uncertainty and retrospection than a fluid regulatory regime.
This reform of insurance contract law is suddenly in danger of becoming a huge lost opportunity for the industry to align itself with the interests of consumers to the benefit of both. An urgent rethink is required.

The Financial Services Authority's sudden move to demand greater transparency from hedge funds is very welcome and shows a degree of determination to cast light into the more mysterious corners of the markets that outstrips past reforms. Predictably, it has brought protests in its wake.
At the front of the queue of complainants are the hedge funds themselves who now suddenly face the prospect of having to explain themselves when short-selling stock that is the subject of a rights issue. What do they have to fear? If they have good reasons for doing this – beyond making themselves millions – then I am sure the intelligent people who run these funds will be able to articulate those reasons. If the reasons are threadbare and amount to little more than gambling on the failure of a rights issue then they will be exposed as such. I will be interested in the explanations because I have never quite understood why an institutional fund manager would lend stock to a hedge fund to drive down the price of shares in their portfolio. I always thought that fund managers liked to think they added value to a firm by holding its shares, not destroyed value.
So, there might be an element of protesting too much about the squeals from the hedge funds. The nervousness this pre-emptive FSA strike has induced elsewhere in the market, I understand a little better.
The FSA has always consulted widely before making major changes, almost over-consulted some would say. Does this move herald an era of more aggressive action on the part of the regulator?More of a take it or get out attitude? I don't know but I do know that it is the fear of many in the markets regulated by the FSA that it could be the dawn of a new reform culture down at Canary Wharf with less asking how people would like to be regulated and rather more telling them how they are going to be regulated.