Coverage Gap Raises Ethical Quandary
The question posed in my last ethics column on March 11 involved gaps in coverage. When coverage terminates for nonpayment of premiums or other valid reasons, insurers may later reinstate coverage back to the termination date when they are assured that no incidents triggering coverage are known to the insured. Is it ethical to declare that coverage existed for the period of time during which there was no coverage?
One reply questioned whether this is even an ethical problem: "As long as the renewal takes into account sound insurance principles and reliable underwriting information, there is no ethical problem. The parties agree. The insurer gets a good reputation. The insured shows continuous coverage and perhaps avoids a hassle. Its a win-win situation."
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
