TCD: Bentley Mutual Policy Holders “Not Insured”
Individuals with a Bentley Mutual Insurance Company certificate who are operating a car or cycle “should immediately consider that they are uninsured,” the Transport Control Department [TCD] said.
The statement from TCD advised holders of Bentley insurance coverage that they are not insured under the Motor Car Insurance [Third Party Risks] Act 1943, and advised them to “contact one of Bermuda’s insurers with authority to insure third party risks and procure a policy.”
In response, Kevin Bean-Walls of Bentley Mutual said that they are “being attacked by established insurers because they do not want Bermudians to have the option that we offer.”
Mr. Bean-Walls added, “We are a small organization of approximately 50 contracts. Why is the government expanding so much effort to stop us? If there is an issue with our policies, explain it to us and allow us to rectify it. Why is it necessary to refuse to serve our policyholders?”
TCD Comments
A Transport Ministry spokesperson said, “The Director of the Transport Control Department [TCD] on April 4th advised holders of insurance coverage through Bentley Mutual Insurance Company that they are not insured under the Motor Car Insurance [Third Party Risks] Act 1943.
“TCD, a Department within the Ministry of Tourism Development and Transport, is responsible for the licensing of motor vehicles and cycles.”
“The Department has been advised that the Bentley Friendly Society, carrying on business as Bentley Mutual Insurance Company [Bentley], has not been authorised under the Motor Car Insurance [Third Party Risks] Act 1943 to insure third party risks.
“Bentley has been issuing Certificates of Motor Insurance with the following wording: “It is hereby certified that a Policy of Insurance covering liabilities to be covered by the Motor Car Insurance [Third Party Risks] Act 1943 is in force…”
“The Department had relied on this statement to issue licenses but has been advised that Bentley does not have the authority to insure the risk of loss to third parties, and therefore this notice is being issued to holders of the Certificates from Bentley.
“Such individuals with a Bentley Mutual Insurance Company certificate who are operating a motor car or livery cycle should immediately consider that they are uninsured.
“This means that if they are found to be responsible for any damage or injury to other users of Bermuda’s roads, they may have inadequate insurance coverage to make good a claim against them. They should not operate their vehicle until they have adequate insurance.
“Individuals who have been issued a certificate of Motor Insurance by Bentley Mutual Insurance Company should immediately contact one of Bermuda’s insurers with authority to insure third party risks and procure a policy.”
Bentley Mutual Comments
In response, Kevin Bean-Walls of Bentley Mutual said, “Please note that motor insurance policies are standard. The policy issued by Bentley Friendly Society is identical to policies issued by i.e., Colonial. Our policyholders/members have been authorized by the Bermuda government under the Friendly Society Act 1868 to retain their own risk of loss. The risk of loss extends to third party claims.
“The gist of the Motor Car Insurance [Third Party Risks] Act 1943 is that operators of motor vehicles have proof of insurance in the event of an accident. Our policyholder /members have that proof. The Transport Control Department has been issuing our members license documents since November 2013.
“Our first public attack was when the Bermuda Monetary Authority [BMA] issued a press release dated 20th March 2014 riddled with innuendo. That document stated that we are not regulated by the BMA – we know that. We are exempt from the Insurance Act 1978 as per section 57. We retain our own risk, we do not sell insurance.
“We are being attacked by established insurers because they do not want Bermudians to have the option that we offer. We are essentially a mutual insurance company. The government in its 2014-2015 budget statement advocated for mutual organizations.
“The government stated that the status quo is the enemy. They stated that all risks cannot be eliminated. The government stated that it has reduced risk that decisions are made for ideological or political reasons as opposed to practical reasons.
“The premium received by Bentley is consistent with the premium charged by other insurers in order to ensure that we have the financial resources to meet our claims. We estimate our claims and reserve accordingly. We make adjustments if actual claims are more or less than estimates.
“The Friendly Society Act 1868 was intended to assist organizations in creating their own capital. Insurance is an ideal way for these organizations to create capital as it is a legislated/required expense of all users of motor vehicles.
“We are a small organization of approximately 50 contracts. Why is the government expanding so much effort to stop us? If there is an issue with our policies, explain it to us and allow us to rectify it. Why is it necessary to refuse to serve our policyholders?
“This is an affront on all Bermudian not just us. This is an attempt to deny opportunity. Friendly Societies have informed us that they were not aware that they had this authority.
“We are educated Bermudians attempting to participate in this economic pie under law. It would seem practical for the government to encourage us to help ourselves as opposed to grasping at straws to identify a way to stop our efforts. We are excited that established insurers fear us.
“We are asking the Bermudian public to support us,” added Mr. Bean-Walls. “And we are asking for the government to stop this attack.”
Never heard of this insurance company.
@ watching………so you have never heard of them, and what?
They are not an insurance company. Seriously how can you even claim to be with only 50 insureds? One claim would blow this away.
every insurance company started with a first policy! what is you point? Do they meet the criteria? If they do, what does it matter if they have 50 or 5000 contracts!
If they do not meet the criteria then close them down until they become compliant. It is not any governments job to hold your hand and guide you. The rules and regulations are in black and white. If you don’t understand them, than then you should not be in the insurance game. The government does have an obligation to step in and shut down companies that are selling policies and not being compliant. This is how one prevents scams!
If they do meet the criteria and follow the rules they should be encouraged and I for one would like to know more. Competition is a good thing. Scams , Stupidity and Risk is not.
Insurance companies operate on the basis that they have enough capital to pay out claims against their policies. You can’t have an insurance company with a handful of contracts. Bermuda has criteria for insurance companies: Bentley doesn’t meet them and is offering a weird excuse that they don’t have to because of an 1800′s law here for friendly societies.
There is nothing wrong with the policy They don’t want any competition but this is just what Bermuda n Bermudians need its time for more options and better price IMO
There is probably nothing wrong with the printed policy in theory, but there is plenty wrong with Bentley Mutual.
Do Bentley Mutual have the capital to cover a catastrophic claim? If a Bentley Mutual Member causes an accident that results in an airlift, extended hospital stay, rehab and continual home care then usual premiums from 50 members will just about cover the airlift.
It’s not about the big guys pushing out the little guys, it’s about the big guys being allowed to operate because they can afford to do the right thing and pay the claims they are obligated to.
If Bentley Mutual were to prove to the BMA that they had the capital to cover third party catastrophic claims then there would be no issue with TCD. Instead they keep pointing to legislation which exempts mutual insurers which has no provisions for those offering third party liability.
I’m of the opinion that anyone buying into anything that’s hijacked a luxury brand name deserves to lose their money. It takes a special kind of person to trust their money with the equivalent of “Gucci Life” or “Louis Vuitton Investments”.
As a fellow motorist, I don’t want your third party insurance to be from a make believe insurance company thank you very much!
Can someone scan a copy of the policy so we can see it and compare to others.
And let’s see their financial statements too.
It does not take genius to run an insurance company; it takes genius to get one. This genie is out of the bottle. Get over it.
Yeah, this sounds like it will work. 50 guys give each other a policy covering their own risks.
I bet they have a bazillion in stop loss reinsurance from Union Asset Holdings in case of a major claim.
Oh, and while the government may be “expanding” their efforts to stop you, I think the word you’re looking for is “expending”.
The government is not looking to stop you setting up a legitimate insurance company. The government is trying to protect third parties who may have a claim against one of your ‘insureds’. There needs to be sufficient assets there in order to pay claims promptly.
“Our policyholders/members have been authorized by the Bermuda government under the Friendly Society Act 1868 to retain their own risk of loss. The risk of loss extends to third party claims.”
I’m sorry Mr. Bean-Walls, but the moment your members’ risks become mine as a result of their traveling on public highways I want to ensure a regulated insurance company with deep pockets is on the other side of that claim vs. a handful of members.
If you want to insure your members’ personal effects from loss, windstorm, theft, etc. so be it. Leave the rest of us out of it.
Get them off our roads now !
Let’s say they have 50 bikes insured for third party, costing $100 a year in premium each. That means they have $5000 in the kitty. Sorry that’s not going to properly cover third party liability. Get real. That’s not insurance.
Never heard of them also. Giving the group the name of a recognised quality car does not make them a reputable quality company.
Looks like alot of pop & sizzle but no beef.
If people want to group together and self-insure their own risk, fine. No problem. The issue here is the third party risk and that’s the problem. People may not immediately realize it from reading this article, but they ought to have a big problem with sharing the roads with people insured by non-BMA regulated bodies which purport to offer insurance against third party risks. The concern here is not for the policyholders themselves, but for fellow users of the road (that would be you and me) who may get injured by the policyholders.
Just because you have not heard of a company does not make it bogus. I first learned 20 yrs ago that Freisenbruch Meyer Group offered insurance coverage. So this is a new alternative to the “bigger” companies. As far as I am concerned, motor vehicle insurance is the biggest scam going. I pay year after year and even with the non claims discount – I am paying more than last year. I sure I am not the only one.
I say good for Mr. Bean-Walls and company!
FM is regulated, and they reinsure their risks. Bentley is utterly unregulated. Not good. If they want to be an insurer then they should ask the BMA to regulate them as a mutual insurer.
Motor insurance is the biggest scam.?? That is until your rear end that Mercedes then your glad you’ve been paying…
At these prices I will take my chances…
They say there is one born every day.
Any chance for a little affirmative action for the natives?
I find it insulting that so many seemingly intelligent contributors to this topic are so misinformed.
A Friendly Society is, BY LAW, not required to be regulated by the BMA. They are legally obligated to present their financialf statements to the Government, which they have done, which is why they were allowed to gain a membership of 50 odd individuals.
The Government found that their practices, in regards to third party insurance, were perfectly in line with the industry practices in November of 2013. Why the sudden about turn? Why is there no mention of the fact that this group of enterprising individuals have not failed to comply, in any way, with the legislation governing their operations?
While I can see the concern uninformed members of the Public may have with the idea of an unregulated insurer, THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
If you crash into me, how quickly can you pay for my replacement vehicle, hospital fees and emergency airlift to the US ?????????
If you don’t have 3rd party insurance stay off the roads.
It does not matter if the company is technically Legal. Offering 3rd party insurance has a lot of implications.
If i am struck by one of these members and this company has no re-insurance or adequate reseves to cover the claim what does it matter if it is legal… they cannot pay.
This is where the BMA comes into it, there are certain financial thresholds for operating an insurance company and i can guarantee that 50 members’ premiums are not even going to come close meeting these thresholds.
So you can be insulted all you like.
At Disappointed:
I have more than thirty years of experience in the local insurance/reinsurance industry and it would appear that someone in the BMA overlooked (or wasn’t told) the fact that the Company was providing Third Party Liability (TPL) insurance.
If a company wants to write TPL risks, then it MUST be registered as a bona fide insurer and subject to regulation. As such, the capitalization of the entity must conform to the standards as set out in the Insurance Act, i.e., it must meet all of the statutory solvency and liquidity ratios.
I find it hard to believe that the Principals of Bentley are not aware of the provisions set out in the Insurance Act. If anyone is “UNINFORMED”, it would be the principals of BENTLEY !
The BMA does not vote.
Go ahead and insure your own vehicles Bentley, but leave me and mine out of the mix!! Go ahead and insure the “own damage” part of the cover but leave the third party liability stuff to those who understand how to price it and how to pay/reserve for claims properly.
Do all of those 50 people in Bentley understand that they will be on the hook when there is a large motor claim? They can run in the hundreds of thousands, and even over $1M per claim!! What liability limit are you offering? If you are only offering the Motor Act Limits then we all need to be very wary as that is an extrememly low limit. If it is the more usual $5M, then the members of Bentley better hope that there is some significant reinsurance in place to protect them against losing their homes in the event of a large claim!!
This should not be seen as a Government cracking down on an entrepeneur in my opinion – it should be seen as Govt ensuring that we are all safer when we travel the streets. If Bentley have the required capital and staff to pay claims, then let them prove it and be regulated properly – if I was them, that is what I woud do – go to the appropriate Government place and ask to be regulated! That would shut everyone up!