|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
~ The Australian “Home Builder” Insurance Policy Scam ~
This document has arisen due to a number of ‘complex’ issues that need rectification. The Primary one is where an Insurer has found a fraudulent ‘loophole’ whereby they are able to do three things that are 'offensive' in God's eyes and detrimental to the once ethical Insurance Code. A – Accommodate the requirement of a government Edict that has the intention to coerce home builders and ‘renovators’ into being forced to pay for any errors in their work * for the purpose of punishing them * using said Insurers. This is an abomination as Insurers are supposed to be ‘protectors,’ not enforcers of punishment. B – Offer a Policy of insurance without actually taking any risk, and in fact not being ‘The Insurer’ to the Policy holder, thus not in fact offering any insurance cover to the Policy holder. This being accomplished by naming a 'Third Party' benefactor as being 'The insured' when they are not. C – To operate as a financier (money lender) and making a lot of money for ‘nothing’ and for no ‘effort’ due to their Policy holder acting as the ‘Insurer’ for the insurance Company, for the Policy holder eventually becomes liable for all claims and costs accrued in the event of any claim being made upon the 'Policy' by the Third Party named as the sole beneficiary * of the Policy, being a person other than the Policy holder who had paid the ‘premium’ fee.
The Second issue is in relation to the interference by the State governing Institution into the private business affairs of citizens who instead of handling their Insurance and other 'life' matters personally, appear to have abrogated their self-responsibility to the ‘system’ that forcefully via edicts has taken on the role of 'Father figure.' This has resulted in the enforcement department of the system having invoked insane rules – edicts – decrees that threaten and coerce and have huge fines attachments for non-conformity. (All this for and on behalf of the people and supposedly for their benefit, whereas in reality all have lost their God-given right of freedom of choice in all matters.) This issue is what has enabled Insurers to forgo their normal ‘practice’ of indemnifying the Policy holder and replace Policy ‘cover’ with a nonsensical Certificate of agreement ‘contract’ that is not only fraudulent, for it names the Third party as being ‘The Insured,’ but the A. I. I. * Ltd insurers empower the insurer (Itself or other insurers offering this nature of contract) to destroy you the Policy holder, and it is fraudulent for them to offer it the ‘contract’ as being a full and 'valid' insurance policy cover for it is not.
~ The Case ~ The Insurer ‘Australian International Insurance Limited’ issues a ‘Buyer’ protection policy under the guise of an honest benevolent society that will honour its obligation to the Policy beneficiary (The purchaser of the home) in the event that the Owner Builder (The policy holder and true ‘Insured’*) is found to have sold the property having 'latent' defects and/or if they go bankrupt, disappear, or decease and, - - - are thus unable to fulfill any ‘corrective’ obligations that arose within the Building Act 2000 reference defective works found within 6 years of purchase. The Insurance obligation becomes effective from the moment the Insured (The Policy holder & owner builder) takes out the Policy and pays the ‘premium’ fee. The ‘invoked’ Policy is his/her guarantee that the insurer will meet the costs of ‘rectification’ to faulty workmanship. The ‘scam’ that has come to light is that the Insurance Policy document has been bastardised to the point that it can no longer be termed as being a true Insurance Policy issued by a reputable Institution. This is because the policy ‘payout’ and thus ‘loss’ of revenue to the Insurers coffers is only effective if the policy holders go bankrupt, disappear, or decease. If they do not go bankrupt, disappear, or decease, then the payout amount ‘due’ under the Policy wording is deemed by Insurers as an amount that is underwritten by and payable by the Policy holder. (The Policy holder & owner builder) I refer to the Policy Section 11 – 11.1 quote; “The Insurer is entitled to recover from the Owner Builder all payments made from any claims and all costs accrued including legal fees on an indemnity basis.” I ask; “Who is supposed to be indemnifying who, and who is receiving the ‘premium’ $ fee to give the indemnity”? Answer: “The Insurance Company” and, when did Insurers decide to invoke within Policy ‘conditions’ a condition stating that once a ‘benefactor’ under the Policy has been paid, that the amount paid reverts back to becoming a reimbursement claim by them against their own Policy holder? If the insurance Policy advertising states as it does: “What is the purpose of the Insurance Cover - - - it is for the protection of the purchaser in the event of the owner builder going bankrupt, disappearing or death,“ it then follows that all the ‘contractual’ clauses agreed to within the Policy Terms and conditions are only valid and binding if the Owner Builder has gone bankrupt, disappeared, and deceased and, - - - It thus follows that if the Owner Builder is available to ‘face’ any claims personally, that it is not incumbent upon the new home purchaser to direct their claims to the Insurer, for within the scope of the present ‘thieving’ Policy, the Insurer does not ‘admit’ any personal liability within the policy issued if the Owner Builder has not gone ‘AWOL,’ (absent without leave) for after claims 'settlement' all claims upon the Insurer are redirected to the ‘account’ of the Home Builder. Thus the Insurer has no legal ‘validity’ to intercede or interfere between the ‘living and available’ Owner Builder and any ‘claims’ by the claimant. It follows that if the new owner does seek recompense direct from insurers, and the result of this incurs any litigation or others costs, that these costs cannot be expected to be met by the real Insured, the Policy holder Home Builder, for he or she could quite probably have made good any defects without accruing any legal or other investigative costs. There is an ambiguity in the words of the basic Policy that contradicts itself due to a misinterpretation of the meaning of the word “The Insured.” This is because the known and established insurance terminology uses the word The Insured as being the person holding the Policy in their name. Thus the Policy Section 1 COVER: 1.1 misleads the Policy holder into believing that any payout repairs are covered by the Insurer at no cost to them, due to them having taken out the Insurance cover Policy and paid a premium. There are ‘later’ words under Section 13: Definitions and interpretations, where the word “The Insured” has been given four different alternative meanings, and the Intent of this is to change the words so that the Policy benefactor is seen as or named ‘The Insured’ for the purpose of the agreement and, so that the Insurer absolves themselves from having to meet the cost of claims. This is insanity that sets a very bad precedent. For example, if I as the Insured being the Policy holder name a Third Party as the benefactor, it does not mean that they are the Insured, it simply means that they are ‘covered’ against loss because I am insured, and thus I am the Insured one.
The ‘way’ that words and greed have been used to invoke the Owner Builder Policy is iniquity, for it uses a ‘premium’ payable by the Policy holder as the means to entrap them into an agreement over which they have no control as to the outcome, nor are they protected in any way, for if there is an insurance ‘payout’ the Insured Policy holder is deemed ‘liable’ to repay the insurer for the claim amount as well as all costs accrued by others who may dispute the claim, thus accruing 'costs' that the real 'The insured' has no control over. The Insurer is paid ‘money’ in the form of a premium so that they are ‘covered’ for the ‘risk’ that they take in issuing a Policy. It is fraudulent to take a premium and to not pay the claim, for in demanding recompense from the Policy holder that is what they are doing. They are not ‘factually’ paying anything; they are simply paying the beneficiary the claimed amount from their coffers and then claiming it back from the ignorant policy holder on whose behalf in their eyes they ‘borrowed’ it. This Insurance company is using the Building Code and its ‘threat’ of a $10,000.00 fine for those that fail to obtain an insurance policy as a means whereby they can earn an income in the ‘guise’ of a ‘protection’ policy, when in fact they are simply extending a payout figure with no ‘risk’ at all as all their expenses and other outgoings are reimbursed at the expense of the public, being a ‘poor’ Owner Builder who was trapped by being ‘conned’ into taking out a Contract of engagement with wolves, when he or she could simply have issued the purchaser a ‘note’ saying:
Any Insurer offering the 'agreement' that gives no protection to the Policy holder is in fact an organisation that is operating as a money lender. For that is exactly what it is doing, for when it pays out money to the Third Party it treats the Policy holder as the 'borrower' of the funds paid, and then similarly as a loan shark' it demands the 'pound of flesh' being the return of all money 'borrowed' and all costs accrued during the transaction. The initial 'premium' fee and costs accrued in having the property inspected prior to accepting the agreement is seen by the insurer as their 'establishment' fee that is in fact the application fee for a 'possible' loan. The agreement 'form' issued is not an insurance Policy nor a 'cover' note. An insurance Company has to be ‘at risk’ otherwise it is not operating as an insurance Company. It is operating as a very dangerous ‘loan shark’ that is prepared to minimise its initial ‘payout’ using all means necessary and to then impose the ‘fiscal’ result upon the poor unsuspecting person that engaged them. The nature of home ‘buyer’ protection cover should be similar to any ‘Third Party’ Insurance, whereby the Policy holder seeks insurance to indemnify themselves by taking out a Policy to protect some other ‘benefactor.’ Thus the Insured (The policy holder) can never make any claim as such upon his insurer as the Policy conditions preclude that as they are specifically designed for ‘Third Party’ protection. But neither can or should the insurer seek any reimbursement from the policy holder, for that means that they were not operating as a true Insurer. Example: If I take out ‘Third Party’ motor vehicle insurance so that another person becomes a ‘beneficiary’ if they are injured by my ‘vehicle’ through my lack or error and, - - - if the subsequent damages payout by insurers amount to $ 200,000,00, I do not expect the insurers to pay the benefactor of the Policy and to then pursue me for a return of the money. After all, I as the Insured paid a ‘premium’ so that neither I nor the other person would be disadvantaged. This is called ’INSURANCE.’
~ Grand Larceny ~ The race track ‘bookie’ is an insurer that guarantees payment to those that place a ‘winning’ bet with his ‘Policy of insurance’ ticket. The insurance Company also takes the ‘bet’ being the ‘premium’ fee guaranteeing a ‘payment of eventuality’ for a ‘losing’ bet loss of their own. If they then seek reimbursement from their Policy holder (client) by using a ‘clause’ to that effect enabling them to obtain restitution for their claim ‘payout’ then they are a Company of bad people that are ‘guilty’ of grand larceny accomplished through ‘cooking the books’ in such a manner that the disclosure of their intent to ‘reclaim’ all their payout costs means that: - - - In the first instance they ‘admit’ that they are not operating as a true Insurer, and secondly they ‘stole’ the ‘premium’ fee from the Home Builder who was lulled into believing that they were fully insured. For it is dishonest to issue a policy cover and then reclaim the costs of any claim. That is not an “Insurance Policy.” An honest bookmaker or insurer knows that a ‘fraction’ of the ‘tickets’ or ‘policies’ issued will attract a payout figure. Only a dishonest insurer would seek to have this ‘loss’ underwritten by, and ‘covered’ by, the Policy holder, - - - for by this ‘act’ of iniquity it means that the Institutional Insurance organisation is not an ‘Insurer.’ What it does mean is that the institution posing as an insurer is merely a ‘broker’ that obtains thousands of ‘premiums’ but pays out nothing. They simply pay out ‘interim’ amounts to every ‘true’ claimant and then reimburse these ‘outgoings’ by seeking recompense from the policy holders. This FRAUD is carried out with the collusion of government agencies. The nature of the expectation of government agencies, in respect of their requirement of ‘protectionism’ is so great that very few insurers are prepared to enter into the business of insuring any Home Builder. This has led to the ‘few’ that offer ‘insurance’ forgoing basic insurance principles and becoming controlling agencies that do not offer their policy holder any insurance cover. They simply use the Policy holder to fund their own nefarious activities backed by the government threat of a $10,000,00 fine if they do not obtain a Home Builder insurance cover before making a sale of the property. Insurers today are only interested in accruing money; they are not interested in paying any out, hence they now destroy the very basic Principle and Practice of Insurance. The Principle and Practice of Insurance term ‘Insurer’ was used to describe an Institution that ‘gambled’ on figures in the foreknowledge that there would be a percentage of loss through claims and, - - - Their ‘books’ had to be balanced so that the ‘fee’ charged as the Policy ‘premium’ was enough to cover their outgoings and to leave them a little profit at the end of the year. The new way of claiming their outgoings from their own client is abominable. Insurance is all to do with ‘risk management.’ Forcing owner builders to pay for any error they made along the way is not ‘risk management’ nor is it insurance business. However risk involved in insuring ‘someone’ against the cost of ‘repairs’ for the errors of others is an insurable business item. Thus a purchaser of a house, car, or vessel could seek to insure themselves for such, as also could the builder. But if the policy has been paid ‘up’ then the insurer cannot and should not seek to recover any ‘loss’ that should be already covered within his percentage fractions of business. Example, if either the owner builder or new owner wish to obtain ‘cover’ for possible defects surfacing within any specified time frame, then they can so do, and they insure themselves or the ‘other’ by paying a fee to an Insurer. It is not possible for the insurer to ‘pay up’ any claimed amount and then repudiate the claim by seeking compensation from the insured, (the policy holder) for the insurer has the opportunity to examine the ‘case’ prior to issuing the policy to ascertain the ‘loss’ possibilities, and had the ‘option’ to give a high or low premium fee prior to issuing cover or to decline from issuing a policy in the first place. ~ The Insured ~ Who is the real “The Insured” is the question in regards to any policy of insurance offered in your ‘direction’? Is it the ‘beneficiary’ named therein (new buyer) or is it the one that paid the premium and holds the Policy in their own name? It is the policy holder that is THE INSURED and, - - - By virtue of being insured, the policy holder is indemnified by the insurer against any loss or claim against them and, if the Policy has a Third Party beneficiary named that is other than the insured, then the policy holder is indemnified because their insurer pays the claim ‘price’ to the beneficiary. Why would a policy ‘holder’ have paid an insurance cover premium to be insured if ahead, the ‘policy’ of the insurer is to make ‘the insured’ poor by later forcing them to pay the claim? It is obvious to me that the insurer seeking recompense from the insured policy holder has become insane due to regulations invoked by the ‘vain.’ If the intent of the government ‘act’ is to protect the new buyer and requires that the purchaser are named as ‘the beneficiary’ within the policy of the home owner builder, then it is simply an insurance ‘protection’ policy similar to the Third Party vehicle policy. It is not for the insurance company to punish the home builder by using force of policy content to so do for, by this they are using the threat of the punitive attachments of the building code as their ‘coercive’ means to gain more income in the foreknowledge that the home seller is bound in a ‘cleft’ stick, as they cannot sell their house without the policy unless they are prepared to pay the fine of $10,000.00 specified by government forces and, when accepting the policy in its present form the owner builder are forced to agree to reimburse the insurer for all claims made within the policy. This is the insanity. If an owner builder or any builder takes out an insurance Policy to cover a ‘buyer’ (beneficiary) in the event that a defect was found and ‘blamable’ upon the owner builder, then the insurer should honour their ‘obligation’ for which they received a ‘fee’ consideration. The fact that insurers are ‘guided’ by swine does not exempt them from the Justice of God who sees all iniquity. God sees that there has been no ‘cover’ extended to the policy holder as the insurer demands that they pay all costs even though the Insured Policy holder has paid them a premium for the cover ‘note.’ Why would a person pay a ‘fee’ to another and by this act of kindness, the fee paid then becomes the guarantee that they will be forced to suffer all expenses? Foolish are those that take out a contractual 'agreement' on a basis that their coming losses are an 'open ended' amount that is not within their capacity to control and, - - - By so doing they are 'permitting' supposed insurers to commit grand larceny, for if the Policy holder cannot meet the claims upon them by the supposed insurer then they will by the Court of 'Caesar' be forced to give up all their goods and chattels and their own home. Policies as issued today with a clause stating the ‘beneficiary’ as being the Insured are fraudulent and misleading and, it also ‘beguiles’ everyone into believing that an insurance cover is issued when it is not. For according to the total story the Insured one (the home builder – policy holder) is only covered properly and free from persecution if they have deceased or have gone on a permanent fishing trip and, in this eventuality they did not need any insurance 'cover' in the first instance. Any sensible purchaser would take their own precautions prior to making their purchase, and they would also ‘suffer’ the consequence if they found any errors and, if they were in any doubt then they should either ‘back out’ or pay for their own ‘safety’ insurance policy in the foreknowledge that there would be no waste of time in litigation etc., as they could simply advise the insurer and receive compensation within the scope of their own insurance Policy. ~ The Insurer ~ The insurer indemnifies the Policy holder against loss. This is because the Policy holder named ‘The insured’ (The home builder or other) has paid a ‘premium’ fee as their ‘consideration’ to be ‘covered’ for any loss or other eventuality that they seek to be insured against. If the nature of the Policy cover is such that its intent and factual representation is that the Beneficiary of the Policy is to be a ’Third Party,’ (such as in the motor vehicle Third party cover) then it is in order to so be but, they are simply the ‘Third party’ beneficiary of the policy and so named by the Insured the Policy holder and furthermore, - - - If an insurer (the ‘Second Party’) pays out a ‘claim’ they must not then seek to recover this payout and reimburse themselves by claiming the monies back from their Insured (the ‘First Party’) because, - - - the insurer undertook to underwrite any and all losses accrued, this was the ‘Act of Insurance.’ One must not ‘name’ the Third Party who is receiving the benefit of financial remuneration as ‘The Insured’ for they are not. Any Insurance Company that makes a 'contract' of agreement with this stipulation has by this deed become complicit to the forceful control imposed by the government agency that is coercing the public by threat of fine into a 'suicidal' agreement. The agreement being that they 'agree' to be punished and accept the self-imposed suffering that results from signing the agreement and, - - - If they sign the agreement, then the Insurer has also become complicit to helping the government 'system' in forcing a person to 'purchase' an Insurance Policy for another person and, - - - By the $1250 Policy fee payment and the $450 inspection fee charged by the 'Insurer' prior to issuing the 'docket,' the insurer has in fact 'punished' the policy holder by stealing their money as it is money being paid for naught and, it could have been put aside to itself meet any genuine claim against the Home Builder at a later date. In the case of the Australian International Insurance Ltd, in Section 11 – ‘Right of insurer to recover,’ - - - this statement implies that their ‘fee’ taken for protection cover, and validation of insurance cover was taken under false pretences because, - - - the Policy holder the ‘home builder’ was forced to pay an insurance premium to protect another and at the same time to receive no personal ‘cover’ for their monies paid. Not only this, but it implies that the home builder has literally bound themselves and subjected themselves into having to pay all costs and charges accrued by the insurer if a settlement dispute arises. This can also take place without the policy holder even being aware that there is a ‘claim’ or dispute. It also means that the Insured (Policy holder) was in fact not insured, for if they were there would be no comeback to them. It is my considered opinion that any insurer who enters into any litigation or claim settlement without first being asked to so do, or authorised to so do by the Policy holder cannot expect the Policy holder to be responsible for any of the costs or outcome. Not only this, but it is also my considered opinion that no Policy holder should be held to ‘ransom’ by anyone simply because their work was found ‘lacking’ in some way. In my ‘eyes’ the ‘works’ of many Insurers are more than questionable, and they are truly very offensive to the Insurer Code of Conduct. Only the unwary, the fearful, or the ignorant would enter into any Home Builder Warranty insurance ‘contract’ with clauses that ‘permit’ the insurer to recover costs of claims and thus disadvantage the Policy holder. This madness can only come into being when governments interfere in personal insurance business, and also results from the fact that insurers have become more interested in ‘shareholder’ profit than offering basic insurance. If an insurance company takes a ‘Service’ fee then they must bear the loss of any claim that is made against the insurance POLICY and its holder. The Policy holder is not an insurer and cannot be expected to be an ‘underwriter’ and thus insure the insurer for their losses. ~ The correct procedure ~ The reality of the day is that it is the property purchaser that should undertake to obtain an insurance policy to give them ‘cover’ for any possible defect that arises ahead. For it is with foreknowledge that we know of the possibility the house or boat or motor vehicle we purchase may be found to be defective in some way. Thus it must be sold in an “As is – where is” condition. For that is the only true way to carry out the sale. For by this statement the buyer is the one to take personal responsibility for their own deeds. Let the ‘buyer beware’ policy now come to the fore. This way the onus is on the purchaser who has the time to examine the product and to have it evaluated by a person of their own choice and, they can then decline to buy, take out their own insurance policy, or make an offer that they are comfortable with. This way there are no disputes possible, and if a defect is found that is within the scope of their own insurance policy then the matter can be settled quickly without litigation. There is too much interference in the normal daily affairs by state officials who have the false belief that they are our ‘keepers.’ They are not, and the regulations they raise up are the cause of all injustice, litigation, and loss to all. I expose the ‘criminal’ white collar FRAUD so that Home Builders become aware that any Institution posing as an Insurance Company that, - - - takes their money and then by ‘conditions’ of the agreement indicate that the home builder will be hunted down in the event of any claim, - - - is an institution that needs to be avoided. For the signing up and by agreement to such terms and conditions is fraught with danger, for prior to paying any claims the insurers will exacerbate the costs they accrue and they will ‘try’ to ‘convict’ you under the terms of the agreement you were coerced into signing. If you cannot find an Insurer that is prepared to take the ‘risk’ of insuring you against any claims upon you for faults found resulting from errors you or your workers made, then simply advise any prospective purchaser of this fact, and let them decide whether they wish to go ahead with the purchase or not. It is truly the time for insurers to ‘clean up’ their act before everyone gives them and their ‘policies’ the SACK.
Example: - If it was found that my vehicle was being driven on the road with bald tyres and faulty steering and brakes that resulted in my losing control of it, and it swerved out of control causing you injury or your property to be damaged, then your Insurer would pay all your claims and not seek recompense from me or my Insurer and, - - - Neither would any person seek to punish me for my 'offensive' errors because all will understand God's Command to : "Go your way in peace and be merciful, compassionate, and forgiving," and they would simply try to rehabilitate me by educative means and assist me to become more thoughtful and respectful of others and, - - - In the knowledge that within God's "As you sow so shall ye reap" Law, that at some stage ahead either in this or the 'after life' I would suffer all the pain imposed upon the other by my thoughtlessness, and I would also suffer any material loss or inconvenience that resulted from my actions. ~ The spiritual reality ~ There is a spiritual reality that is unseen by any other than the wisest, and it is I to now lay this truth at the feet of this realm of consciousness. For it is time for all mankind to come to the enlightened understanding that the only reason they 'suffer' from the 'actions' of others is that they deserve it, and if they try and force the other to compensate them then they accrue another 'debt' to God. So if you are a home buyer that seeks indemnity cover from another who may 'fail' to satisfy the building inspectors requirement, and you expect them to pay a fee ensuring that you are compensated and, that they will then have to be 'punished' and possibly lose all through court appearance costs that are placed upon their 'plate' then you are foolish, for it is you ahead on another day to suffer an equal loss within the "As you sow so shall ye reap" Law of God. Certainly you can take out your own indemnity Policy and yourself pay the premium fee. But if the insurer themselves then later seeks to recover their 'losses' from the errant builder then they accrue a similar penalty due from God, for God said: "Be merciful and forgiving and never use 'force' (Court action) to gain anything." If you have not taken out any insurance Policy and a builder does a 'shonky' job and your home falls apart at the seams, then suffer it in the knowledge that you are simply paying a long past due accrued in this life or a pre-birth time or, that resulted from karmic dues accrued here directly or indirectly as the consequence of the actions of your paid servants. (See the Spiritual consequence of ACTION) Leave the 'errant' builder to God, for any 'faults' on their side that caused you any trauma or loss is their accrued debt to God, and God will ensure that they are similarly brought to account at a later stage and they will suffer as did you. Remember, no insurance 'cover' voids mental or emotional or physical suffering. You may be 'covered' by Insurers in not having to pay money in 'pain and suffering' compensation as is done on earth, but there is still the unavoidable 'equal' suffering to be suffered by you as a spiritual due. For no 'money' voids the immutable Law of God. Every 'governing' Institution on earth has given itself the 'authority' to interfere into every aspect of the lives of others. This 'fatherly' protectionist attitude of government policy is such that it demands that builders protect others and if they do not, then they are to be punished. Legislation has been invoked that forces people to either put their head in a noose and made to suffer or, in failing to put their head in a noose they will also be made to suffer. Try and see that the 'rules' or building codes raised up that ensure 'worthwhile' or strongly built homes may well be beneficial to all, but the spiritual reality is that they should only be educative and advisory and not have any punitive 'attachment' clause for non-conformity. For who is any person to force others to comply to their directives? Those that so do place themselves into the dark side of God's Law, and all control, restriction, frustration, impoverishment or punishment meted out comes back to 'clout' them at a later time and place. Every believer in God needs to now get on with their life and their business without 'bowing' to the regulations of any institution of man. Simply do the best you can as you turn your back on 'systems' and take God as your 'wife' as you treat all with care, respect, and consideration. Those that 'fear' that you will do them an 'injustice' are free to obtain their own Policy of insurance cover as God would have it be. As for insurers, it is the time for them to also become of 'age' and 'suffer' the loss of claims personally and, with the new understanding that they should never seek any recompense from any other person or insurer.
You the purchaser are entitled to invoke your own insurance Policy if you so wish to, but do not expect or demand that any other person do it for you at their expense. Terence
Ends
|
