5. 怡和保險+啟勝的{專業}服務

因為屋苑邨巴管理出现問題,對邨巴外判的合同看了一下,發现一些不付合一般商業原則的條文,於是要求啟勝管理處給我其它重要的外判合同作參考,發现屋苑之保險條文藏著天大的笑話!
最不可以想象的是駿景園由1997年初入伙到現在今日仍有保險條款Public Liability Insurance承保大業主的”Sales Office”及”Show Flats”;保險費由小業主付!
我估數十頁的Insurance Policy裝載著17年前至今天都未有改過的條文,這確實是太過份了,大業主的賣樓示範單位保險費為何要小業主付?第一手單位由大業主17年前已賣光,現仍舊每年付售樓處及示範单位的保費?另加經理人酬金10%,再加HQ(headquarters指啟勝總部費用)1%費用.
但是震驚的發現還有以下各條文:
– Employees’ Compensation Insurance其中一項:保障屋苑管理處全部員工的全球訪問公幹旅行“Worldwide in respect of overseas visits by all employees”,整個管理處140多人,保安,會所,行政…全包!!!
– Property All Risks Insurance及Public Liability Insurance:保障大業主商場的Loading Bay上落貨及公眾停車場(方便到商場消費的駕車人士).
– Public Liability Insurance的另一條款是保障所有承辦商(contractor),其實各外判合約上已要求了承辦商必須自行買足保險.
這個保險合約是每年續期的;由香港各名牌保險公司報價,再由我們的名牌物業管理公司(啟勝地鐵RAMCL)作最終審批的.
將這些問題電郵發送到啟勝,cc RAMCL及各業主,得到啟勝的回應是多個”No Cost Implication”,無講一句“我錯了”.
要求怡和保險顧問有限公司(JLT – Jardine Lloyd Thompson Limited)回復也是一樣:”No Cost Implication”
真不知道有多少商場或大業主的花費是”No Cost Implication”地由小業主承擔的.
我們小業主可以做些什麼?
請問什麼時候我們可以有小業主聘請的核數師去確認”No Cost Implication”的事實?
文章分類 *為無為, 啟勝, 港鐵, 經理人酬金-MR, 重點個案, 駿景園
3 comments on “5. 怡和保險+啟勝的{專業}服務
  1. PeterCWC@RoyalAscot 說:

    From: Peter Cheng
    Sent: 23 December 2013 12:43
    To: Cousins, Nick – HKG5595
    Cc: KS, MTR, RAOC,…..
    Subject: Re: Insurance Policy Review

    Dear Mr. Cousins,

    Thank you for your time taking the issue seriously and providing a thorough reply.

    I would like to leave it to Kai Shing to review your points and provide their professional opinions to you and Royal Ascot owners.

    Best Regards and Happy Holidays,
    Peter Cheng
    Owner, Royal Ascot Block 9 15Fl.
    http://www.eowner.info

    From: “Nick_Cousins@jltasia.com”
    To: petercwc
    Cc: . . .
    Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:41 AM
    Subject: RE: Insurance Policy Review

    Dear Mr. Cheng,

    Re. Insurance Review – Various policies Covering Royal Ascot

    Thank you very much for your patience and tolerance over this matter which I sincerely appreciate. As promised, I have now investigated the matter with my teams and challenged various points and I have also reviewed the various policies of insurance referred to which are held in the name of Kai Shing Property Management Ltd (Kai Shing) the management company of the premises in question situate Ascot Court. Having conducted this research, I am now writing to formally respond to the various matters which you have raised, initially to Kai Shing, and latterly to my company Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT). However, before outlining that response, Mr. Cheng, I do need to explain the structure of the policies in question where we the procurer of the policies is Kai Shing Property Management Ltd who, in turn, effect the insurances via my company JLT as a major Hong Kong insurance broker. We, JLT, in turn, source from the Hong Kong general insurance marketplace, the most competitively priced programmes with the most comprehensive scope of policy coverage on behalf of that procuring Management Office. Kai Shing.

    There are therefore, effectively, several insured entities or parties under the policy who are represented by the Management Office (Kai Shing) and this is an entirely normal method of procuring insurance for multi tenanted or multi owned commercial (and, indeed, residential) premises. In some case the premium charged to the tenants (or owners or occupiers) of the respective units are charged an identified insurance premium and in other cases the commensurate proportion of the premium is embraced within an overall monthly management fee which the tenants (or owners or occupiers) pay to the Management Office. Both methods are entirely normal for this type of insurance transaction.

    With regard to the scope of coverage, JLT will, always attempt to procure the most comprehensive breadth of coverage across the policies in question and that, by necessity, will mean that there are often coverage extensions, clauses, endorsements and enhancements which may not necessarily be relevant to all of the participating insured entities in question, but which, in themselves, carry no premium impact by their inclusion in the policy and, thus, would derive no premium rebate were such coverage enhancements to be removed.

    For simplicity, Mr. Cheng, I am outlining below the various questions originally raised by you and I will then offer JLT’s formal response to each of these matters in the same sequential order. For ease of reference in the event that we need to discuss any of these points at a later stage, I have labelled each of your questions “Mr. Cheng Q” and each of my answers as “JLT A”.

    ************************************************************************************************************

    Mr. Cheng – Q1. : “Money All Risks Insurance” : Less cash handling within RA estate will be required since Octopus Card and/or Credit Cards will be used more often in future for Shuttle Bus and other transactions. Suggest to remove this item completely.

    JLT – A1 : If Kai Shing, as the procurer of the policy, can offer a revised and reduced Money Sum Insured, in the knowledge that that reduced Sum Insured will be the maximum payable in the event of a loss, then, yes, there may be potential for a premium rebate. However, the instructions to reduce the existing sum insured must come from the same source/party who effected the Money insurance programme, i.e. Kai Shing, and we, JLT, will then certainly action that request.

    Mr. Cheng – Q2 : “Employees’ Compensation Insurance” : Geographical Limit should only be valid for Hong Kong . There should be no need for “Worldwide in respect of overseas visits by all employees”?

    JLT – A2 : This is such a situation (referred to in the third paragraph above) where wider coverage incurs no premium penalty and, thus, no premium rebate is likely to be allowable were cover to be converted to Hong Kong only. The Hong Kong Employees’ Compensation Ordinance certainly makes no condition upon Worldwide coverage and, here again, if the procurer of the policy, Kai Shing, instructs JLT to convert coverage from Worldwide to Hong Kong, then, most certainly, we, JLT will action that request, but there is unlikely to be any premium rebate benefit to the individual owners/tenants

    Mr. Cheng – Q 3 : “Property All Risks Insurance” :

    a. MTR is the 100% owner of Public Car Park and Loading Bay for the Commercial Accommodation. Not sure why they are included in the policy (under Risk Location). What % if any is being shared by MTR on the total premium?

    JLT – A3

    a. To be frank, Mr. Cheng, JLT are not party to the premium allocation on any of these policies. When placing the programme with the designated (most competitive/comprehensive) insurer, we secure one flat premium for each of the policies in question and this premium is then likely to be apportioned to the respective subscribing tenants/owners/occupiers by Kai Shing as the Management Company. There will clearly be a methodology Kai Shing adopts in allocating those premiums and I have every confidence that this will be a just and equitable methodology, but JLT, as brokers, are simply not involved in that allocation. MTRC, as owners of the car park and loading bay, will indeed require insurance protection on that element of the policy, but, again, I cannot answer as to whether MTRC was allocated any premium for this very small element of exposure/coverage.

    b. The policy mentioned about “Podium” under “Insured Items”. According to DMC, the “Podium” has 3 levels including the Commercial & Government Accommodations. Could this be clarified to avoid misunderstanding?

    JLT A – Q3

    b. : Again, upon receipt of instructions from the Kai Shing as the procuring entity as to any revision to, or clarity of, the description of the podium, JLT will be only too pleased to action that request. I will ask Kai Shing as to whether they wish greater clarity to be made on the current description and will advise you of their response.

    Mr. Cheng – Q4 : “Public Liability Insurance” :

    a. MTR discussion same as above.

    JLT A – Q4

    a : JLT’s response would be identical to that provided in JLT A – Q3 b. above. Yes, in theory, MTRC should be levied a small premium charge for this very remote element of coverage, but we cannot confirm whether that has been the case as this premium apportionment is in the sole domain of Kai Shing as the Management Company.

    b. Condition #10 on “Sales Office/Show Flats” could be removed? It is for MTR selling new flats and not RA owners’ business?

    JLT A – Q4

    b : This, again, is such a situation (referred to in paragraph three above in this e-mail) where the wider coverage extension on the Sales Office/Show Flats incurs no premium penalty and, thus, no premium rebate would likely be allowable were the coverage on this designated item to be removed. Here again, if Kai Shing, as the procurer of the policy, wishes to instruct JLT to remove this coverage then, most certainly, we, JLT, will action that request, but there is unlikely to be any premium rebate benefit to the individual tenants/owners/occupiers of the premises.

    c. Condition #16 on “Contractors” should be well covered under contractor’s contracts?

    JLT A – Q4

    c : In theory, Mr. Cheng, yes, that should be the case, but, in reality it isn’t always so. We have often witnessed situations where a contractor should responsibly insure, but either fails to do so or the coverage they have secured is not as wide as it should be, often leaving gaps and exposed but uninsured areas. The particular extension under the policy which Kai Shing has procured as the Management Office operates on a contingency basis to protect such a situation where, for example, a plumber or an electrician causes a third party property damage loss (or, worse still, a third party bodily injury loss) but, for some reason has no insurance or has invalid or weak insurance. This policy steps up and takes over that situation, subject to it’s own terms and conditions.

    Here, again, this is such a situation (referred to in the third paragraph above in this e-mail) where the wider Contractors coverage extension incurs no premium penalty and, thus, no premium rebate would likely to be allowed were coverage on this extension removed from the policy in question. However, here again, if Kai Shing, as the procurer of the policy, wishes to instruct JLT to remove this coverage extension, then, most certainly, we, JLT, will action that request, but there is unlikely to be any premium rebate benefit to the individual tenants/owners/occupiers.

    d. Condition #27 on “Legal Cost” for “Defense or Settlement of Claim” is open for discussion. Is it the insurance company’s own business?

    JLT A – Q4

    d : This extension, Mr. Cheng, is really nothing to do with the insurance company’s own business. Rather, what this very valuable extension clause is saying is that, in the event of a third party liability claim (for bodily injury or for property damage), the Insurers in question will pay, not only the award of compensation Kai Shing (or the tenants/owners/occupiers) are legally liable to pay to the injured third party claimant as compensation for such bodily injury or third party property damage, Insurers will also pay the costs in defending any claim against the Kai Shing as the Management Office (or the tenants/owners/occupiers). Here, again, this is such a situation (referred to in the third paragraph above of this e-mail) where the wider “Costs In Addition” coverage extension incurs no premium penalty and, thus, no premium rebate would likely be allowed were the coverage on this extension to be removed. However, here again, if Kai Shing, as the procurer of the policy, wishes to instruct JLT to remove this “Costs In Addition” coverage extension, then, most certainly, we, JLT, will action that request, but the coverage would be reduced and there is unlikely to be any premium rebate benefit to the individual tenants/owners/occupiers.

    ************************************************************************************************************

    Mr Cheng, I do hope the above answers your questions comprehensively and honestly although I would be delighted to discuss my answers further, in person, should you so wish and explain or expand upon these responses. My numbers are outlined below for that purpose.

    I do hope you will understand that, Mr. Cheng, JLT cannot (or are unable to) answer questions on premium allocations, because we are simply not privy to that apportionment.

    Wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

    With kind regards,
    Yours sincerely

    Nick

  2. PeterCWC@RoyalAscot 說:

    蘋果日報 2012/2/28
    港鐵「打劫」小業主 旗下屋苑保費激增2000萬
    負責約40個住宅物業管理項目的港鐵,被指為旗下住宅物業購買昂貴保險,更選用一間曾有估錯價前科的測量公司為物業估值,令小業主要付較貴的保險費。港鐵住宅業主權益聯會主席林悅指,40個屋苑總保費由原來每年2,000多萬元大幅增至4,000萬元,港鐵被質疑為賺取更多經理人酬金,安排業主購買最少貴1,500萬元的昂貴保險,犧牲小業主利益。記者:梁德倫 鄭啟源

    林悅指出,港鐵去年委託威格斯為旗下物業評估全面重置價值,即若樓宇推倒重來的建築成本總值,結果全線物業的建築成本增加數以倍計。根據估價結果,多個屋苑「大升值」,例如海堤灣畔的全面重置價值由17億元升至27億元;都會駅由26億元增至77億元;映灣園由39億元升至89億元。. . .

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20120228/16109525

  3. PeterCWC@RoyalAscot 說:

    追怡和亞洲總經理跟進:

    —– Forwarded Message —–
    From: Peter Cheng To: “Nick_Cousins@jltasia.com”
    Cc: “wilson_chan@jltasia.com” ; “erica-chu@jltasia.com” ; RAMCL, KS, RAOC, RA Owners
    Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 2:00 PM
    Subject: Re: Insurance Policy Review

    Dear Mr. Cousins – JLT Managing Director

    Please note that we (owners of Royal Ascot) have not received a formal reply from JLT regarding your company’s poorly prepared insurance policy despite our repeated requests since 24 July, 2013. Please refer to below emails and your staff Wilson Chan and Erica Chu for details.

    We hope to receive your formal reply asap.

    Thanks and best regards,
    Peter Cheng

發表迴響