3 ms·
You could make a time based argument like that for any contract dispute. "Payout delayed is payout denied" isn't true, but if it were then it'd mean all contrac
by thu2111 6y ago
You could make a time based argument like that for any contract dispute. "Payout delayed is payout denied" isn't true, but if it were then it'd mean all contracts were useless. So you aren't showing that there's something specific to insurance here that's special, and there are plenty of mechanisms to help people who aren't rich get justice (e.g. no win no fee arrangements).
If an insurance company is regularly stiffing people then it won't last long regardless of whether an insurance commission exists or not.
- ncmncm 6y agoI.e, "All crooks will get their just desserts if we just wait long enough."
- thu2111 6y agoNo, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you have a working mechanism for contract enforcement, then insurer specific mechanisms on top should be redundant. The replies arguing with this seem to mostly be arguing that contracts don't really work, at least in the USA. Contracts are a very general construct that really do need to work, and it'd make far more sense to make them more enforceable than set up hundreds of industry specific commissions to try and make every commercial dispute one between a company and the government.
- utucuro 6y agoContracts where one party is incapable of getting the contract enforced are useless for that party. In the insurance case, an insured natural person may have lost the means to do so as a direct result of the event that leads to the insurance claim. If you lose your family and house in a fire, with marginal savings, then you may not be able to afford a lawyer and your contract is useless in the truest sense of the word. Unlikely situation? Yes, but then, that's exactly what insurance is all about.