Hiscox Share Discussion Threads

[rndm355] 22/4/2020 21:58

some comments on hiscox here:

[our haven] 22/4/2020 08:47

Good robust update

[danielinnes74] 20/4/2020 16:53

Agreed. the fin implications may not be as bad as worst case scenario but the brand damage is probably irreparable in the short to medium term. I’d avoid.

[2toptrader] 20/4/2020 10:36

Easy to see why Mr Gov would get involved: we helped with business rates, we pay for the staff and even give the businesses a small grant. Mr Insurer you have to chip in, no? But even if Mr Gov doesn't get involved, Hiscox will waste a lot of time and money in courts as they'll want to push settlement as far out as possible.
On the other hand, if the BI cost is not as bad as feared,( they could argue that they only have to supplement the gov help), it could be a good buy.
Tough one to call, so I'll pass.

[semper vigilans] 19/4/2020 21:03

Sorry for shareholders but why would anyone deal with them now?
Personal experience of them not wanting to quote when I thought I was low risk annoyed me.

[danielinnes74] 19/4/2020 17:11

And your right their brand is raking an absolute hammering

[danielinnes74] 19/4/2020 17:10

Plootocrat. On point 3 I’d comment that their RNS is very cleverly worded. In my opinion they are paying out on those claims they have absolutely no choice on (I.e where there is unquestionable affirmative cover) . They have no choice on these. The problem they have is the BI claims that they have declined that the clients (and their lawyers) believe should be covered. Their rns, in my opinion, deliberately avoids this. Have a butchers at the Raymond Blanc claim article in the press for added info. This is not an isolated incident and there are numerous such legal challenges.

[2toptrader] 19/4/2020 09:57

"So, most visibly in America, a zero-sum existential battle is developing between businesses, most of them small or medium sized, and insurance companies."

[plootocrat] 17/4/2020 10:48

A few points on this debate:
1. The BI wording on Hiscox's small business package looks to me like they are liable for covid related BI claims. If the wording is ambiguous the courts will find in favour of policyholders because of the current political climate and contra preferentum.
2. To make a BI claim the policyholder has to show they have suffered a loss and the extent of that loss - straightforward for a restaurant but less so for an office-based organisation whose staff have been able to work effectively from home.
3. Hiscox say their exposure to these BI risks is very limited (see RNS a couple of days ago) but the one thing I don't understand in all this is why if that is the case, they didn't seize the initiative and trumpet the fact that their cover is wider than the rest of the market and they are paying all legitimate claims as quickly as possible. I believe they are going to have to pay anyway so why not take advantage of the situation rather than suffer reputational damage as well as the financial hit.
4. Hiscox are a leading insurer of exhibitions (including cancellation thereof). It's entirely possible that losses here will outweigh those on the BI section of their SME policy but nobody seems to be talking about that.
5. I cannot see how the government can force any insurer to pay a claim which the contract of insurance does not cover without fundamentally undermining the principles of contract law and setting a precedent which they will almost certainly come to regret. If the government decide that covid related BI claims should all be paid then perhaps they should step-in and act as insurer of last resort themselves (though that would open a new can of worms about whether businesses who had not bought BI cover at all should be indemnified to the same extent as those who had etc etc).

[farrugia] 17/4/2020 09:02

why is hiscox rallying exactly? this looks threatening

[chris79] 16/4/2020 18:25

This wording does look damming, until you read it with the rest of the policy which makes it clear that it must be localised incidents.

[chris79] 16/4/2020 18:23

I think you're right the key is can /will they be bullied by the government? However in my view there is a huge jump from the totally unacceptable way the government has bullied banks and insurers to not pay dividends (but the money is still in the company) compared to the utterly outrageous potential bullying of a company to pay for x when they insured for y.

[gilston] 16/4/2020 17:44

Each individual policy will surely carry a financial limit or cap on u/ws` exposure to otherwise legitimate claims.

The real threat is coming from the misguided attempts by politicians to pressurise the insurance markets into paying claims irrespective of coverage wording [ie] ex gratie settlements at the expense of us shareholders. But why should we pay?

This must be resisted at all costs.

[netcurtains] 16/4/2020 13:31

Blimy 8% up! Wish I caught that one!
Well one lads

[robizm] 16/4/2020 13:13

To be fair I never said I was an expert or long term investor in this stock. Just think the markets are going to tank big time.

[windsor430] 16/4/2020 12:50

Inspired move? Cashed out on a 10% profit? Jeez. All the big boy chat on this forum over the last two days from various people - Really shown everyone’s true motives & colours.

[robizm] 16/4/2020 12:20

I cashed out at £7.80. Don’t like these markets as a lot worst to come imho.

[danielinnes74] 16/4/2020 12:14

Ribozym.. inspired move... cashing out or holding for a while?

[salver2] 16/4/2020 01:56

Interesting conversation - I know this is a Hiscox board but can anyone tell me why aviva shares look so cheap?

[danielinnes74] 15/4/2020 23:04

Doubtful waiken.
The core products people have bought are there for ‘normal’ claims like fire/theft/flood and never were meant for ‘new’ pandemic risks. PPI was borderline fraud as it never really covered any true risks

[waikenchan] 15/4/2020 22:55

Ssems like this has the potential to be the next ppi of insurance by the looks of it.

[topvest] 15/4/2020 21:53

Generally, I would expect business interruption not to cover pandemic risk as this is not what they are buying, given that this is a specialist risk. The Hiscox wording looks like they are going to take a bit of a hiding on this, probably unlike most other insurers with more sensible wording. A lay person reading that policy would come to the logical conclusion that they are covered. They could well lose this one in my view, but I am no expert! That would be a shame as Hiscox are a normally such a good insurer.

[topvest] 15/4/2020 21:51

Yes, have to agree that the Hiscox wording looks much more problematic than many others. Whether or not the claimant has notified the local authority specifically on their premises in a timely manner may be open to challenge though.

[danielinnes74] 15/4/2020 16:21

there is also the ‘public authority clause’ which doesn’t help them much either.

[robizm] 15/4/2020 16:00

Does every policy say that? Or just the one the Rns mentioned this afternoon.