But at least Lamco didn’t issue any gagging order or attempt to silence you!

In the same vein, I had a similar experience with Lamco: someone hit my car in 2007 and he accepted being the faulty party, and we filled in our ‘constat à l’amiable’ forms without any problem. When I found that the faulty party’s insurance was Lamco too, I thought the matter would be settled within weeks, and that the damages would be repaired and reimbursed sooner than other cases.

Hehe, wishful thinking!!

It took 3 weeks for them to despatch an “expert” to examine the damaged car. Repairs were ordered after 3 more weeks during which I had to “lasstik” them over the phone and in their offices countless times. Repairs were completed in 4 days, but it took another 7 months to get reimbursed costs of damages… And they reimbursed me only 3 weeks’ compensation as “loss of use”, at Rs 50 per day.
Wanna go to Lamco?

Thanks for the great comments.

We didn’t pursue the matter further. We came. We saw. And we left. We have changed our car insurance company.

I know we could have fought with them but, to be frank, we both felt it was not worth it as the car damage was relatively minimal and we would waste a lot of our time and energy in the process.

The thing that bothered us was the fact that we were badly treated. We were customers. And we had expectations. Unfortunately, those were never satisfied. So, as I wrote above, we left…

Did MUA inform you that if you have a complaint you could write to their Complaints Coordinator? Her name is available on the Financial Services Commission website http://www.fscmauritius.org . Did they inform you that you could write to the complaints coordinator of the other company too?

Did they inform you that in case of dispute over the claim they could refer the claim, on your behalf, to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Arbitration Committee (MVIAC Tribunal) for their ruling/judgement? Did they inform you that you could apply directly to the MVIAC in your own name and against MUA itself?

Indeed with changes in the new Insurance Act 2005, such as new solvency calculation, splitting of Composite insurance companies into two separate entities, that is, life and general the financial position of MUA with be very seriously affected if they have to reimburse MCB’s claim. MUA’s reinsurer has rejected MUA recovery of the claim which essentially means that MUA would have to fit the bill on its own.

With their shareholders fund (capital) standing at only Rs1000 million they will be then left with only Rs200 million to pay their other claims and expenses which far exceeds Rs200 million. This will certainly put a lot of financial strain on them as with less funds available their investment income will also drop.

So, I would say yes, MUA will go bankrupt of they have to pay the MCB claim for which they have so far not made any provisions with they are legally obliged to do. The question we have to ask here as well is why has the Financial Services Commission not taken any action against them for not complying with the law as regards outstanding claims provision.

all the best