How IAG, Insurance Australia Group dealt with the valid claims resulting from the fire that destroyed Killara, a luxury house and Qualmark 5 star Lodge, near Kerikeri, Northland New Zealand is the subject of this detailed case study.
The New Zealand Government has strict rules all insurance companies must follow that dictate how they treat their customers. Insurers must deal with their customers fairly. It is clear from the evidence here that IAG has not dealt with the claims from the Robinsons in respect of the Killara Fire fairly at all.
BAD FAITH
Throughout the last nine years, IAG have acted in BAD FAITH towards the insured, numerous complaints to the NZ Government have been made and resulted in nothing being done. One can only question why this is the case?
NO RESPONSE FROM IAG
IAG who must be fully aware of this and our other websites have taken no action to have it removed from the internet. Apparently they have no issues with us disclosing the details of their crimes and cannot proceed against us since they accept that everything here is true! Or are they too scared to say anything!
The Insured Property – Killara, 125a Ness Road, Waipapa, Northland New Zealand. A 495sq m luxury house and Qualmark 5 star Lodge with a valuation based on a offer for purchase from a client of Ray White Estate Agency, Kerikeri of $2.995M (including the land)
Also insured were the personal contents to a sum of $100,000 and two motor vehicles with combined agreed valuation of $43,000.
The Insured – Chris and Alison Robinson who lived at the property which was owned by their trust, the Killara Trust. The interest of the Trust was disclosed along with that of ASB when the policy was taken out. They had left the property early on the day of the fire and were in Hamilton, some 400Km distant when the fire occurred.
The Event – the property was totally destroyed by fire, first reported at around midnight on 9 September 2011.
The Cause – Intruders definitely were at the fire scene, they had forced entry by smashing a laminated glass panel in bi-fold doors leading to the ground floor bedroom suite. There was evidence of jewellery being removed and no remains of the really valuable items that existed in the property such as bronze statues, ceramic art pieces, antique glass and the like were found in the debris. DNA of two unidentified persons was found at the barn on two fresh cigarette butts. Rocks had been used to smash windows and glass balustrades during the early stages of the fire, the rocks and the broken glass were found on top of fire debris at the scene.
The Investigators, Maurice Fletcher of PINZ Whangarei was initially appointed, he attended the scene on 11 September 2011 meeting with the Chris Robinson who he immediately accused of causing the fire, even before he had stepped into the remains of the property. When he did so he found no evidence to back up his accusations. He called for reinforcements and Russell Joseph of Corporate Risks Limited arrived at the scene on 14 September 2011.
The Case Study has been broken down into sections
Investigation
Evidence Planted
Fabrication
Police Interview
Claims Denied
Framed
Pre trial
Print Command
Alibi and Acquittal
Blackmail
The Criminals
IAG’s illegal activities in this case included the following:-
- Falsifying evidence
- Introducing evidence into fire scene
- Framing Chris Robinson for Arson
- Conspiring to bring false accusation against Chris Robinson.
- Bribing Police officers
- False arrest of Chris Robinson
- Deliberately delaying to force Bankruptcy on the insured.
- Perjury
- Conspiring to defeat justice
- Interfering in applications for Legal Aid by the Insured.
All the facts, the evidence and the results of their actions are recorded here, you will be shocked by just how far IAG went to avoid meeting the claims.
And, even more shocked, when you realise it is just an example of the DELAY, DENY, DEFEND system they operate to increase profits at the expense of policyholders not an isolated occurrence.
Use of the DELAY, DENY, DEFEND system by IAG is part of their Company Policy to increase profits and attract more shareholders to invest in Insurance Australia Group.
IAG’s website leads with this graphic, claiming their PURPOSE is to ‘Make your world a safer place’
Please read the pages here and ask yourself if IAG really does ‘make your world a safer place‘ ?
I’m sure you will agree that their ‘purpose‘ is not that at all but to make as much profit as possible at the cost of their policyholders.
3 thoughts on “IAG Case Study”
Fair go, mate.
What a website and what a story!
I could never have guessed that IAG could make such a dog’s breakfast out of a simple claim.
Well done to expose them in such a cool way – all verified and utterly impossible to explain away.
Chris didn’t start fire, others did and IAG must pay claim!
Hiding behind the bankruptcy and other excuses they created is bullshit, mate.
Yo’ve nailed um rock solid!
Thank you, Chris for giving me permission to use your website data in my doctorate thesis.
As you know, I am studying the Effectiveness of website data on influencing decision makers.
Your websites which have been connected to Amazon Analytics, my employing companies’ data collection system for almost 10 years are extremely pertinent to the study of review sites.
Firstly, some basic facts, your main websites used in my study are the older, 100% New Zealand on http://100-nz.com/ which used to attract significant traffic levels for many years but much of that traffic was generated by searches for ‘New Zealand’ and ‘100% Pure’ tourist and immigration information with a sizable but minority interest in the IAG insurance position.
The current sites are IAG Insurance – Case Study on https://insurance-australia-group-iag-case-study.com/ and IAG NZ – Bad Faith on https://iagnz-bad-faith.com/ attract much more focused visitors with a greater concentration on the main IAG market areas of Australia and New Zealand.
These generate similar levels of focused traffic as the old site but from visitors interested primarily in insurance.
IAG Insurance – Case Study, has averaged around 500 local hits per day in 2021 whilst IAG NZ – Bad Faith, averages 400 local hits, similar in level to the local traffic levels for 100% NZ in previous years.
Studies have established that websites in various categories generate various levels of response. Sites advertising high quality products return sales in the 0.1% to 0.5% of visitor level.
Sites advertising services, such as insurance, return 0.3% to 0.8% due to visitors being more focused and limited choice of supply.
At the other end of the effectiveness spectrum, ‘Influencer Blog’ sites can direct traffic onto product sales sites by up to 10% of the influencers traffic and the focus effect increases the sales from 0.1% to 0.5% to over 2%. This is the reason some influencers now earn multi-million dollar incomes each year!
Established ‘Review’ sites can be highly effective, a recommendation can affect 10% – 20% of readers opinion on the product or service reviewed with significant effects on sales figures. Negative reviews are even most critical, with almost 40% of readers agreeing that the review seriously influenced their decision not to buy the reviewed product or service.
Your websites are definitely within the established review category, highly detailed with many disturbing aspects relating to the way IAG may deal with valid claims and, in my experience would cause over 30% of readers to discount using IAG as their preferred insurer.
The issue however is not that clear cut, it is impossible from the data available to ascertain how many of the readers are actually current or potential customers of IAG’s insurance companies. Nor is it possible to establish how many readers did not buy an IAG policy or changed their insurance away from IAG due to reading the website information.
IAG, of course, cannot see the premium income lost by the effect of your websites, it didn’t occur and so it is impossible to audit and cancellation rates may have changed marginally over the ten years the sites have operated but the change would not have been significant in any case.
So how significant is the loss to IAG?
I spoke to several insurance brokers in New Zealand to establish the average cost of taking out House Insurance during the last 10 years, distorted somewhat by the large recent increase in property values with the inevitable increase in premiums to match.
The lower end of the consensus was that the average House insurance policy was around NZ$500, most buyers also taking out Contents cover in addition for around $150. Most policy holders let the policy run for a minimum of 3 years before review and many let it run for 10+ years. From these figures we can make a low-end estimate of the loss of premium income made by IAG for each person that decides to use a different insurer or cancels their policy.
I calculate this to be $600 per year for 3 years – $1,800 lost income. Using these figures, we can establish the effective levels of lost premium income to IAG at various levels of website effectiveness.
If just 1 reader per day decided to use a different insurer or to cancel over a year the lost premium is $657,000 per year equating to $6,570,000 over the 10 years since the first website appeared.
This is far too low! My research would indicate that of the 900 website visitors per day around 2% would be potential IAG customers and 30% -40% of those would have their decision affected by the website data.
Conservatively, of the potential IAG customers, I assume the lowest probability is that 3 readers per day decide against IAG, that causes the loss to IAG to be $1,971,000 per annum.
Are IAG insane? This question must be seriously considered, over the ten years since they decided to take the decision to decline your claims your website has cost them a minimum of almost $2,000,000 a year in lost premium income, a total of almost $20,000,000 over the entire period!
With premiums now on average far higher than $600 per annum for House and Contents cover the loss from this year on will be equally far in excess of $2,000,000 a year and the website will also increase in effectiveness as time passes.
As a simple commercial decision, irrespective of their established intractable position it makes no sense not to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
Thank Nat, I’m stunned by your figures and analysis.
Most to the comments we get are from people that have decided not to insure with IAG or to cancel and change to another insurer, hundreds of them a year usually thanking me for revealing the facts about IAG. I used to publish a few of them but really wanted to keep the site clean with only important comments published such as yours.
Would you give evidence to a Court to back up your findings, I know you are an Australian now working for Amazon in the US but AVS links enable easy court appearances.
Thanks again
Chris R