Variance On Fire Policy

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31343, 13 April 1967, Page 14

Variance On Fire Policy

An attack on fire insurance companies and underwriters in thinking too much of premiums and not enough of eliminating risks was made by an underwriter, Mr M. C. Healey, at a meeting of the Christchurch Fire Board last evening.

Mr Healey, a member of the board, was said to be too broad and general in his criticism of fire insurance companies generally, by Mr T. F. Perkins, also an underwriter. Speaking after discussion about a need for more sprinkler systems in big buildings, Mr Healey said that there had been far too many fires in Christchurch recently which would not have happened had fire risks been eliminated. “Too many insurance company staff are too interested in selling insurance and haven’t taken sufficient interest in the type of risks on their books. Insurance companies and underwriters should be interested in eliminating fire hazards, and staffs should receive constant directions to do the things they should in eliminating fire risks. “One reason is that companies are in competition in business, but this should not stop us from preventing hazards. We should be thinking only of what we are getting by way of premiums but also what is being lost by way of fire. “We have had far too many fires that could have been prevented had fire hazards been eliminated in the last four months. I believe New Zealand is on the threshold

of many, many of these fires and that we underwriters must take more care to eliminate risks,” Mr Healey said. “I take issue with what Mr Healey has said,” Mr Perkins said. “The majority of companies make recommendations, but how many owners of properties go to the expense of eliminating risks to their premises after they have been pointed out? “Architects are among others to blame. They design buildings as they want them without even consulting underwriters.” Mr Healey: I have been involved in one of the fires myself and I just want to pass on to other underwriting companies what I have learned. Mr W. E. Olds; Many of them ask for the Are service officer of the brigade to make an inspection after a fire. He does splendid work. But some insurance companies accept the risks without making extra premiums. Mr Perkins: Mr Healey has been too broad and general in condemning insurance companies as a whole. I think the majority of companies do take steps to eliminate hazards. There are some which don’t, and I will admit It But they are the minority. Mr Healey: I withdraw my remarks and say I refer to a minority.

Mr T. H. Boyle: From remarks made, it would seem that some concerns don’t do anything about fire risks, and would welcome fires . . . Mr Olds: Tut, tut! Mr Boyle: Why not? What’s wrong with that? They just rebuild. It is lives lam concerned with. He said that in the United Kingdom insurance companies put an extra 15 per cent premium on premises without sprinkler systems. Why wasn’t the same done in New Zealand?

Mr Perkins said that stage had not been reached in New Zealand.

Mr Healey said that underwriters should not let fire risks go, with consequent heavy losses when New Zealand could not afford them, until the stage was reached. Other organisations just ignored fire risks and regulations, said Mr Boyle.

Asian Importance.—Withdrawal from Asia today was “isolation in its most foolish form,” the Minister for External Affairs, Mr Paul Hasluck, said today. Lack of interest in Asia was very close to being lack of interest in world affairs, he said.—Canberra, April 12.