What is the difference between Risk Participation agreement and an Insurance Contract?
Jan 25, 2007 by Azzah Al-Huneidi | Posted in Insurance
As part of their organization operations, some Export Credit Agencies tend to use insurance contracts to provide cover for identified commercial & non-commercial risks akin to Letters of Credit issued by banks in developing countries.
Some confirming banks are accepting such documentation tomitigate the underlying risk; however, other banks seem to assert on using Risk Particiaption Agreements instead, which are more or less subject to the same conditions.
There is a Magic of difference. An insurance contract is, well, an insurance policy! The company issuing the policy, theoretically, has money behind them to pay claims, and is above a answerable to to insurance and banking laws in their state. If they are admitted to do business in your state, then your state actually has a guarantee nest egg, in case they go bankrupt, to pay your claims.
A "risk participation" agreement, is just a pool of people who don't have insurance, who come to SHARE CLAIMS PAYMENTS. There is no guarantee that there will actually be any money at the time your claim needs to get paid. Also, not only do you pay in your divide up, but if claims are abnormally high, you ALSO pay in again. And again, and again. They are NOT subject to governmental, banking, or insurance regulation. It's highly speculative.
mbrcatz | Jan 25, 2007
There is a In seventh heaven of difference. An insurance contract is, well, an insurance policy! The company issuing the policy, theoretically, has money behind them to pay claims, and is motive to insurance and banking laws in their state. If they are admitted to do business in your state, then your state actually has a guarantee lucre, in case they go bankrupt, to pay your claims.
A "risk participation" agreement, is just a pool of people who don't have insurance, who jibe consent to to SHARE CLAIMS PAYMENTS. There is no guarantee that there will actually be any money at the time your claim needs to get paid. Also, not only do you pay in your divide up, but if claims are abnormally high, you ALSO pay in again. And again, and again. They are NOT subject to governmental, banking, or insurance regulation. It's highly speculative.
mbrcatz17 | Jan 25, 2007
Buildings insurance - we're buying a house and need to "put the insurance on risk"??
Nov 13, 2007 by The Gold Medal | Posted in Insurance
We're in the transform of buying a house. As we are not using our mortage lender (Alliance & Leicester) as the insurer for the house, our counselor-at-law has told us that we need find buildings insurance and "put it on risk" for when the contracts are exchanged.
What does this mean?
It says that a mention or renewal notice is not sufficient, it must be a policy schedule.
How can I buy insurance before I've bought the house?
I ideally want to buy my insurance online too.
Try booming through an insurance broker and get professional advice instead of the half-baked and often incorrect information given here.
Once contracts are exchanged you are chargeable if the home is damaged and so acquire an insurable interest. If you know the date of the exchange of contracts then you can take out insurance effective from that time i.e. put it on cover. The policy schedule is evidence that an insurance contract has been entered into (you can get renewal notices/ policy booklets but they don't cater proof that cover is in place).
So it is in your own best interests that you arrange cover to start on the date of swop of contracts. You can go into an insurance brokers and get policy booklet and schedule produced there and then and walk out with them. You'll also get free professional guidance and immediate quotes from a range of insurance companies (all of whcih will be accurate which is more than I can say for quotes obtained by 'aggregator' websites.
welcome news | Nov 13, 2007