Selasa, 09 Mei 2017

Tidak Dibayar 100 Persen, Nasabah Asuransi Ajukan Gugatan
Jakarta - Industri asuransi tumbuh dengan pesat dalam beberapa tahun terakhir ini, Namun sayangnya pertumbuhan ini tidak lepas dari beberapa masalah antara nasabah dengan perusahaan asuransi.

Seperti yang dialami nasabah bernama Jasmany, pemegang polis asuransi yang beralamat di jalan Sumbadra RT 006/RW 007 Tanah Tinggi, Jakarta Pusat. Jasmany adalah pemilik Usaha Dagang Berkah Motor di kawasan Kelapa Gading, Jakarta Utara yang merasa dirugikan oleh Zurich Insurance Indonesia akibat klaim asuransi tidak dibayarkan secara penuh. Bengkel yang sudah diasuransikan Jasmany tersebut hangus terbakar beserta isinya pada 7 Desember 2015 silam.

Jasmany mengajukan gugatan dengan nomor gugatan 128/Pdt.g/2017/PN.jkt.sel yang didaftarkan kuasa hukum dari pemegang polis asuransi pemilik ke Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Selasa (9/5). Dalam gugatan tersebut Jasmany meminta Zurich Insurance Indonesia untuk membayar kekurangan pembayaran klaim.

"Kami daftarkan gugatan ini untuk meminta keadilan kepada majelis hakim atas objek pertanggungan untuk diganti sebesar 100 persen atas bangunan dan stok barang," kata Axel kuasa hukum Jasmany saat ditemui di sela-sela persidangan.

Lebih lanjut Axel mengatakan bahwa kliennya selalu memperpanjang polisnya setahun sekali dengan proses pengecekan nilai fisik bangunan dan stok barang yang ada.

Sementara pemegang Polis Asuransi Jasmany menyatakan kejadian ini terjadi pada tanggal 7 Desember 2015 dan sampai saat ini penyelesaian pembayaran dari pihak asuransi belum selesai. Padahal semestinya 4 bulan setelah dari tanggal kejadian pembayaran tersebut sudah harus diselesaikan.

"Setelah bengkel mobil saya mengalami kebakaran tanggal 7 Desember 2015 yang lalu tentunya di dalam klausul tertulis selama 4 bulan setelah kejadian harus di bayar secara full," katanya.

"Atas kerugian yang timbul dari peristiwa kebakaran tersebut maka pada bulan Februari 2016, saya mengajukan klaim pembayaran ganti rugi kepada PT Zurich Insurance Indonesia dengan nomor klaim 1170962 dan di dalam klausul kebakaran adalah salah satu peristiwa yang ditanggung sebesar 100% (seratus persen)," ungkapnya.

Menurut Jasmany pihak asuransi hanya membayarkan kerugian sebesar Rp1,2 miliar dari nilai total pertanggungan sebesar Rp6,75 miliar. Karena tidak tercapai kesepakatan mengenai besarnya nilai klaim, maka kemudian Jasmany mengajukan mengajukan gugatan wanprestasi ke hadapan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan di mana saat ini proses pemeriksaan gugatan yang diajukan Jasmany terhadap pihak asuransi masih berjalan.

Sumber: Berita Satu
AXA Mandiri gandeng MUI perluas literasi asuransi
JAKARTA. PT AXA Mandiri Financial Services (AXA Mandiri) bekerja sama dengan Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI). Keduanya meneken perjanjian kerja sama untuk program edukasi keuangan syariah bagi kaum muslim nusantara yang disebut “Satu Juta Umat Mandiri”.

Program ini merupakan kelanjutan dari kegiatan literasi dan edukasi asuransi syariah yang sukses dilakukan pada 2016 lalu.

"Kami mengaapresiasi para Dai MUI yang dengan hangat serta tangan terbuka menerima kehadiran untuk memberikan literasi dan edukasi mengenai asuransi syariah," kata President Director AXA Mandiri, Jean Philippe Vandenschrick dalam keterangan tertulis, Selasa (9/5).

Jika melihat perkembangan industri asuransi syariah di Indonesia yang terus tumbuh secara positif, AXA Mandiri dan MUI merasa bahwa program “Satu Juta Umat Mandiri” memberikan andil dan mendatangkan dampak yang positif terhadap peningkatan pemahaman masyarakat mengenai asuransi syariah.

Tahun ini, AXA Mandiri akan melakukan literasi dan edukasi mengenai asuransi secara langsung kepada para jamaah di berbagai kota di Indonesia.

Berdasarkan Survei Nasional Literasi dan Inklusi Keuangan (SNLIK) yang dilakukan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) pada tahun 2016, indeks literasi asuransi syariah baru sebesar 2,51%, yang berarti hanya 2-3 orang dari 100 orang Indonesia yang di survei mengenal asuransi syariah. Sementara pemahaman indeks literasi perasuransian lebih tinggi yaitu 15,76%, yang artinya dari 100 orang Indonesia 15-16 orang mengenal asuransi.

Director of Alternative Channel AXA Mandiri Henky Oktavianus menambahkan, selain memperluas literasi mengenai asuransi syariah kepada para jamaah, AXA Mandiri juga terus mengembangkan produk asuransi berbasis syariah yang dapat sesuai dengan kebutuhan kaum muslim di Indonesia.

Dalam pemasarannya, AXA Mandiri bersinergi dengan perusahaan anak Mandiri Group salah satunya Bank Syariah Mandiri (BSM). BSM mempunyai potensi nasabah bagi pemasaran produk AXA Mandiri.

Didukung ketersediaan infrastruktur IT yang memadai dan 765 kantor cabang di seluruh Indonesia, BSM menjadi channeling produk AXA Mandiri yang memberikan kontribusi baik dalam pemasaran produk asuransi syariah sesuai dengan segmen nasabah BSM.

“AXA Mandiri akan terus aktif mendorong pertumbuhan industri keuangan syariah di Indonesia. Kehadiran asuransi dalam kehidupan masyarakat Indonesia, dengan biaya kontribusi yang semakin terjangkau, dapat menjadi solusi untuk meringankan berbagai risiko kehidupan yang terus meningkat dewasa ini,” imbuhHenky.

Sumber: Kontan
Bisnis emiten asuransi belum membaik
JAKARTA. Bisnis perusahaan asuransi umum yang tercatat di Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI) lesu. Mayoritas emiten asuransi umum memang masih bisa mencatatkan pertumbuhan premi di kuartal I 2017.

Dari sembilan emiten, hanya dua perusahaan membukukan penurunan pendapatan premi. Cuma, dari sisi laba, ada lima perusahaan asuransi umum membukukan penurunan laba bersih (lihat tabel).


PT Victoria Insurance Tbk (VINS) misalnya. Pendapatan premi perusahaan ini sejatinya masih naik 60,22% menjadi Rp 8,54 miliar di kuartal I-2017. Tapi, laba bersih VINS justru menurun 42,47% menjadi Rp 2,33 miliar.

Beban klaim neto yang meningkat 190,39% menjadi Rp 6,65 miliar menekan kinerja emiten ini.

Nasib, PT Asuransi Harta Aman Pratama Tbk (AHAP) lebih baik. Perusahaan ini masih bisa membukukan kenaikan pendapatan premi dan laba meski tipis.

Premi neto AHAP tumbuh 4,15% menjadi Rp 42,87 miliar. Sementara laba cuma naik 2,94% menjadi Rp 1,05 miliar.

Sunyata Wangsadarma, Direktur Utama AHAP mengatakan, lini bisnis kendaraan bermotor masih menjadi andalan bagi bisnis AHAP. "Meskipun porsi kendaraan bermotor tahun ini turun 45% dibandingkan tahun sebelumnya berkontribusi 55%," ujar Sunyata, Minggu (7/4).

Dewi Fortuna juga memayungi PT Asuransi Bina Dana Arta Tbk (ABDA). Meski premi neto menurun, laba perusahaan ini justru naik 5,22% menjadi Rp 42,74 miliar. Penurunan pendapatan premi tersebut lantaran premi dari kendaraan dan kecelakaan serta kesehatan menurun.

Premi asuransi kendaraan menurun 12,57% menjadi Rp 215,26 miliar. Sementara premi asuransi kecelakaan dan kesehatan turun 18,24% menjadi Rp 38,64 miliar.

Menurut Dadang Sukresna Ketua Asosiasi Asuransi Umum Indonesia (AAUI), kinerja asuransi yang lesu dikarenakan penjualan kendaraan yang melemah di awal tahun 2017. Padahal, asuransi kendaraan menyumbang 30% untuk keseluruhan kinerja perusahaan asuransi.



Sumber: Kontan

Senin, 08 Mei 2017

A Comparison of the 1982 and 2009 Clauses (3)
1982
2. This  insurance  covers  general  average  and  salvage  charges,  adjusted  or determined according to the contract of affreightment and/or the governing law and practice, incurred to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss from any cause except those excluded in Clauses 4, 5 6 and 7 or elsewhere in this insurance.

2009
2. This insurance covers general average and salvage charges, adjusted or determined according to the contract of affreightment and/or the governing law and practice, incurred to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss from any cause except those excluded in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below.

No change, other than the concluding words of the 1982 version are omitted as surplusage.

1982
3. This insurance is extended to indemnify the Assured against such proportion of liability under the contract of affreightment "Both to Blame Collision" Clause as is in respect of a loss recoverable hereunder. In the event of any claim by shipowners under the said Clause the Assured agree to notify the Underwriters who shall have the right, at their own cost and expense, to defend the Assured against such claim. ("Both to Blame Collision" Clause)

2009
"Both to Blame Collision Clause"
3. This insurance indemnifies the Assured, in respect of any risk insured herein, against liability incurred under any Both to Blame Collision Clause in the contract of carriage. In the event of any claim by carriers under the said Clause, the Assured agree to notify the insurers who shall have the right, at their own cost and expense, to defend the Assured against such claim.
This clause owes its existence to the law prevailing in the United States in collision cases. Under English law (since the Maritime Conventions Act in 1911) the degree of blame is divided between the vessels in proportion to their degree of fault, as decided by negotiation or an appropriate tribunal. Thus, if Vessel A is held to be 40% to blame and Vessel B 60%, cargo on Vessel A can recover 60% of its damages from Vessel B. Usually that cargo will not be able to recover the 40% balance from the carrying vessel because of the terms of the Contract of Affreightment which will contain exceptions regarding negligent navigation (this position will change in many cases with the introduction of the new UNCITRAL terms). Historically in the USA, if both vessels were to blame, the blame was always divided on a 50/50 basis, irrespective of the degree of fault. Additionally, the cargo on Vessel ‘A’ was allowed to recover 100% of its losses from Vessel ‘B’. Vessel B would then recover 50% of the Cargo A claim from Vessel A, so that Vessel A ended up paying 50% of the damage suffered by its own cargo. This situation was not an attractive one for shipowners so they began to insert a “Both to Blame” Collision Clause in bills of lading which enabled Vessel A to recover that 50% from Cargo A. As a result, it was necessary to insert a both to Blame Collision Clause in the cargo policy to confirm that cargo insurers would respond in respect of that liability to Vessel A.

Since 1975, the US Courts have moved away from the strict 50/50 split and will now apportion blame according to degrees of fault. However the ability for the 100% claim of Cargo A to go to Vessel B and then be recovered in part from Vessel A and then in turn from Cargo A remains, which explains the continuing need for the clause which, happily, is rather shorter than this explanation. The 2009 wording has been adapted slightly in the interests of clarity.
A Comparison of the 1982 and 2009 Clauses (2)
INSTITUTE CARGO CLAUSES (A)

General
There has been some updating of the language used in the clauses. In particular:
-    The terms ‘goods’ and ‘cargo’ have been replaced by ‘subject matter insured’.
-    The term ‘underwriters’ has been replaced by ‘insurers’.   
-    The marginal side headings in the 1982 Clauses have been replaced by sub-headings.

- - - -

1982
RISKS COVERED
This insurance covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured except as provided in Clauses 4, 5 6 and 7 below. (Risk Clause)

2009
RISKS COVERED
This insurance covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured except as excluded by the provisions of Clauses 4, 5 6 and 7 below.

“Except as provided” is replaced by “except as excluded” which gives a clearer indication that the clauses referred to are exclusions. Otherwise, the well tried and tested formula setting out coverage remains intact. The classic exposition of how this type of policy works remains the House of Lords judgment in British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaunt, [1912] 2 A.C. 41. The case concerned bales of wool insured against all risks in transit from sheep back in Patagonia to Punta Arenas en route to Europe. Some bales were damaged by water prior to loading on the ocean vessel and the question arose as to whether the insured could show that there had been a loss by a casualty. There was little evidence of the manner in which wetting had occurred, but that did not prevent the insured from succeeding. Lord Birkenhead concluded…


”The damage proved was such as did not occur and could not be expected to occur in the course of a normal transit. The inference remains, that it was due to some abnormal circumstance, some accident or casualty. We are, of course, to give effect to the rule that the plaintiff must establish his case that he must show that the loss comes within the terms of his policies; but where all risks are covered by the policy and not merely risks of a specified class or classes, the plaintiff discharges his special onus when he has proved that the loss was caused by some event covered by the general expression and he is not bound to go further and prove the exact nature of the accident or casualty which, in fact, occasioned his loss.”

Although the standard ‘A’ Clauses cover is very wide, certain trades may require additional wording to suit the particular circumstances or the nature of the cargo.   Any such additional wording needs to be carefully phrased if it is to achieve the desired result. In Coven SPA v Hong Kong Chinese Insurance Co. the Court of Appeal dealt with a cargo of beans insured from China to Italy under Institute Commodity Trades Clauses (A), which have the same ‘All Risks’ wording as ICC (A) but including the additional words “shortage in weight but subject to an excess of 1% in the whole shipment”. It was agreed that there was no physical loss on the voyage but there was nonetheless a short delivery of some 14% for one parcel of the cargo. It was accepted that the difference was due to a warehouse measurement error and that the loss would not be recoverable under the standard ‘A’ Clauses wording. However, cargo interests argued that the shortage in excess of 1% was recoverable as a “shortage in weight” mentioned in the special additional wording.

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Clarke rejected this argument, supporting the lower Court. As a matter of construction, he considered that the relevant insuring words meant there must be loss of or damage to the goods. On broader terms, he failed to see that the parties could have intended to insure goods that never existed or that the Assured would demonstrate an insurable interest in cargo that had never left the warehouse, the point at which the policy attached. The Court did not rule out the possibility of insuring this kind of “paper loss”, given a willing insurer, but the clearest wording would be needed to give effect to this intention.

TO BE CONTINUED
A Comparison of the 1982 and 2009 Clauses (1)
INTRODUCTION

1. The introduction of the 1982 Clauses was a radical step that finally liberated cargo policies from the old S.G. Policy (the second schedule to the Marine Insurance Act 1906) which had been described in various judgements as "a very strange instrument" and "absurd and incoherent". This change had been resisted for many years because it was felt that it might lead to uncertainty; the S.G. Policy had been considered by the Courts on many occasions so that the effect of the words, however archaic, was felt to be well understood.

The clear and accurate drafting of the 1982 Clauses put these fears to rest and there has been remarkably little litigation regarding coverage in the intervening years.

However, nothing  stays perfect for  ever and the  Joint Cargo Committee (made  up of members of the International Underwriting Association and the Lloyds Market Association) is to be commended for taking on the task of reviewing and updating these clauses which are so important to the International Commercial Community.

2. The process of revision was started in February 2006 when the LMA sent out a questionnaire to interested parties and the Joint Cargo Committee set up a Working Party chaired by Nicholas Gooding. After analysing the responses to the questionnaire the Working Party produced a detailed consultation document (with Guidance Notes prepared by Clyde & Co.) which was distributed to the worldwide cargo markets in May 2008. Revised drafts were circulated in October 2008 before the final version was agreed ready for implementation on 1 January 2009.

The new clauses can be found on the LMA website at www.lmalloyds.com

3. In the Commentary Section that follows:
- The 1982 Clauses are shown first
- The 2009 Clauses follow
-    Our comments are shown in italics
-    Where there are no changes of any significance only the 2009 version has been shown.

In addition to highlighting the changes, we have referred to relevant law cases that occurred since the 1982 Clauses and discuss a number of practical issues that arise frequently.

4.    If you have any queries regarding the new clauses or cargo claims generally please contact any of our offices listed on www.rhlg.com.

TO BE CONTINUED . . .
Artikel ini ditulis oleh:
R.R.    Cornah
Richards Hogg Lindley St Nicholas House, Old Churchyard, Chapel Street, Liverpool L2 8TX
Kisi-kisi ujian LSPP AAMAI September 2017
Dengan menulis judul 'Kisi-kisi ujian LSPP AAMAI September 2017' bukan berarti saya akan memberikan kisi-kisi soal AAMAI untuk ujian September 2017 besok lho...

Yang saya maksud dengan kisi-kisi adalah bagaimana cara belajar Soal Jawab AAMAI yang ada dalam buku buku yang saya buat (klik link ini). Jadi saya ngga akan kasih soal-soal prediksi yaa... hehe

Namun, sebelum saya masuk ke lebih dalam mengenai cara belajar Soal Jawab AAMAI, saya ingin mengulas beberapa 'mitos' yang mungkin pernah kita dengar, yaitu:

Tulis jawaban sebanyak-banyaknya, minimal habiskan 5 halaman (dari total 10 halaman) lembar soal. --> Ini benar, asalkan jawabannya memang betul ya... Nulis banyak kalau jawabannya ngalor ngidul juga sama saja. Intinya, soal bagian kedua (pilih 4 dari 6 soal) itu harus dijawab sekomprehensive mungkin. Komprehensive artinya penjelasan mengenai teori disertai contoh dan penerapan.

Soal akan berulang setiap tahun. Misal: Soal Ujian September 2017 biasanya akan mirip dengan soal ujian September 2016; Soal Maret 2017 akan mirip dengan soal Maret 2016. --> ini tidak benar. Pembuat soal AAMAI punya banyak bank soal, jadi mitos tersebut tidak perlu dipercayai.

Nah, kedua hal di atas tentu tidak boleh menjadi pegangan kita dalam menghadapi ujian AAMAI. Di tulisan ini, saya akan menjelaskan bagaimana cara belajar Soal Jawab AAMAI yang ada dalam buku buku yang saya buat (klik link ini). Begini nih:

Di setiap soal, saya akan cantumkan di periode ujian mana saja soal itu pernah muncul. Semakin banyak soal itu muncul di 3 (tiga) tahun terakhir, berarti kemungkinan muncul kembali di ujian Anda mendatang akan semakin besar, daripada soal yang baru sekali muncul. 
 
Sejak 2012, AAMAI menggunakan kurikulum baru. Oleh karena itu, Anda perlu memfokuskan pada soal-soal dari tahun 2012 ke atas. Soal-soal tahun sebelumnya hanyalah sebagai referensi. 
 
Pastikan bahwa soal-soal yang membutuhkan penjelasan yang panjang dan lebar dipelajari dan diberikan porsi lebih untuk dipelajari. Soal-soal ini yang nantinya akan muncul pada bagian kedua dari soal-soal AAMAI. Soal-soal yang hanya membutuhkan jawaban singkat tentunya akan muncul di soal nomor 1-8 yang nilainya kecil.

Nah, sepertinya itu dulu tips dan trik untuk mempelajari Soal Jawab AAMAI secara efektif dan efisien. Semoga berhasil!