Hurricane Melissa is healing my recurring ambivalence about writing this nearly three-decade-old column. The first sign that the process had started was an email from a leading environmentalist. The insurer wrote off a vehicle that was damaged by last year’s Category 5 hurricane. The claimant, who has a 36-year relationship with the insurance company, was satisfied with the proposed settlement, except that the offer stated that ownership of the damaged vehicle, or salvage, would not be transferred to the insurer, as happens in some cases.
The policy wording was clear. The insurer had the sole right to determine how the claim was settled. Given the policyholder’s long relationship and claims-free history over those decades, I sought the insurer’s agreement to bend the rules and help the policyholder, who was reluctant to keep the wreck and dispose of it. The claims manager listened politely to my request to change its offer. The company contacted the claimant two days later, as promised, and said that the original settlement offer had been adjusted to comply with the policyholder’s request.
The policyholder and I were ecstatic. The claim outcome was positive – not negative, as some of these interactions are – and was exactly what the claimant wanted. Commendations to the Gleaner reader, the claims manager, and the insurance company. Its action was consistent with the penultimate paragraph of my September 26, 2025 article: “ Insurance is not simply about paying claims after a disaster. It is also about creating the conditions for building trust, inclusive development, and resilience.”
Fellow contributor and personal financial planner Oran A. Hall and I are at opposite ends of the financial services industry regulatory spectrum. His February 18, 2026 article, ‘Your back is covered consumer, how regulators provide protection’, highlighted the contrast. The existing insurance regulatory framework, which appears sound to him in theory, is, from my experience, ineffective in practice. Former customers of Stocks & Securities Limited, many of whom entrusted their life savings with the company and ended up destitute, would agree that the Financial Services Commission and the Government offered them no protection. I do not understand how someone who describes himself as a personal financial planner failed to link the inconsistencies between his profession and the article he wrote.
The third positive sign that the healing process was under way was an unsolicited email from another claimant who reads this newspaper. This person’s house, which is in a rural parish, suffered $1.6 million in hurricane damage. Two-thirds of the claim was for the replacement or repair of solar panels that were fitted to the roof of the house. The loss adjuster, an independent professional, though paid by the insurer, advised the policyholder that “the policy does not cover solar”. The repair cost for this item was therefore removed from the claimant’s repair estimate. As a result, the adjusted repair estimate was below the $400,000 deductible threshold and disqualified the claimant from making a claim.
Did the insurer comply with its regulatory duties in the management of this claim? Are solar systems excluded from the contract as the adjuster alleged? Adjusters are often described as independent professionals. The person assigned to this case represented that he was authorised to settle this claim on behalf of the insurer, presumably in addition to his loss-adjusting functions. Were these facts disclosed to the claimant when the adjuster first visited the insured premises, or were they disclosed when the decision about the claim was communicated to the policyholder? Were details of the compensation between the adjuster and the insurer shared with the policyholder? Was section 142A, subsection (3) (i) of the regulations dealing with the management of conflicts of interest complied with?
Mr Hall’s article implicitly suggests that the existing legal insurance framework is effective in protecting consumers. How did this claimant fare? Did the adjuster’s actions help to promote an industry ‘culture in which the fair treatment of all customers is paramount’ and engender trust and resilience?
Section 142M of the FSC’s December 31, 2022 Proclamations, Rules, and Regulations is relevant. Insurers must, it says under subsection (2) (b), “include procedures for the resolution of any grievance or dispute arising in relation to the insurance claim made”. This provision was not complied with. The insurer’s decision, as represented by the adjuster, was final and the file would be closed, without any right of appeal.
Subsection (3) (b) of the rules says that “if there is any limitation on insurance coverage affecting the claim, the limitation should be explained to the claimant as soon as possible”. The alleged limitation was communicated to the claimant 40 days after its discovery and, more importantly, was wrong.
There was nothing in the contract to say, ‘it does not cover solar.’ Building is broadly defined to include, among other things, ‘awnings, walls, gates, and fences and landlord’s fixtures and fittings, fixed water storage tanks and pumps, and solar water heating systems.’ To give the adjuster the benefit of the doubt, he or she appears not to have read the contract.
Most modern insurance markets, according to my research, treat solar photovoltaic systems that are permanently attached to buildings as parts of the building (fixtures), and not as separate items, assuming that the policy definition of ‘buildings’ is broad enough and the sum insured properly reflects their value. On the other hand, if the adjuster interpreted the contractual definition of the insured building as excluding solar, he was obliged to give the claimant a clear explanation for its exclusion and why it was not included in the generic term ‘fixtures and fittings’, which the contract says are specifically included in the definition of building.
By praising the virtues of the emerging regulatory framework for the local financial services industry, Mr Hall, unintentionally or otherwise, has helped me answer the question I posed in my last article, ‘Is the Twin Peaks (TP) regulatory model still right, given Hurricane Melissa? I am now firmly convinced that the answer to that question – despite my respect for the country’s last finance minister, Dr Nigel Clarke – is that the TP regulatory tool that he bequeathed to the BOJ is inappropriate for the island. I will explain why in my next article.
If you require assistance managing risks or solving insurance problems, Cedric E. Stephens offers free counsel and advice. To obtain information and counsel, please write to The Business Editor at business@gleanerjm.com or contact Mr Stephens directly at aegis@flowja.com. Letters and e mails will be edited for clarity and length.
