Eight insurance brands have achieved five-star ratings for handling home contents claims, with five top scoring for private motor, LMI Group’s latest ClaimsComparison report shows.

The second-quarter survey covers claims handling in 22 product classes, with 639 entries.

LMI Group MD Allan Manning told insuranceNEWS.com.au ratings improved for 201 entries and deteriorated on 233.

“It could be insurers are tougher, or consumers are more aware of their rights,” Professor Manning said. He says the figures “pre-date the recent east-coast storms”.

“While it is pleasing to see some insurers have improved their ratings, it is disappointing that some have gone backwards.

“Hopefully this will be a trigger for them to review their processes and practices to regain their old position,” he said.

Catholic Church Insurance and Factory Mutual received five stars for their Business Pack, ISR and Stand Alone Business Interruption claims handling.

For directors’ and officers’ claims handling, top honours went to Specialist Underwriting Agency, Allianz, and CGU Professional Risks Insurance.

Catholic Church Insurance and Chubb attained five stars for management liability, while Catholic Church Insurance and Calibre top-scored for liability.

Accident & Health International and Allianz rated best for corporate travel.

Brands with five stars for home contents claims handling are Ansvar, Catholic Church Insurance, Chubb, Guild Insurance, Mansions of Australia, RACT Insurance, TIO, and Teachers Health Fund.

For private motor claims, five-star rated brands are AIG, Bank of Melbourne, BankSA, RAC Insurance and TIO.

The ratings are based on measures including average length of resolution, “ranked resolution by agreement and other”, and “ranked resolution in favour of applicant”.

Click here to search the database. (http://www.claimscomparison.com/Default.aspx)

This article was originally published last week, but inadvertently contained outdated information. The error was corrected on the site, but may not have been noted by many readers. We have reproduced the entire article with the correct data, and apologise for the mistake. – PUBLISHER