Vol. 203 No. 2
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will clarify the present position of policy-holders of the Equitable Insurance Company and, in particular, the position of a policy-holder who may have a claim, such as a claim arising from a motor accident, against the company while the liquidator is in charge of its affairs.
37.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he had any statutory responsibility to supervise the accounts and trading activities of the Equitable Insurance Company Limited at regular intervals; and what is the present position of holders of policies with the company who may wish to claim on them.
38.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he first became aware of the present financial position of the Equitable Insurance Company Limited.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 together.
Insurance companies licensed to carry on business in this country are required to deposit with me annually, audited returns in the form laid down in the Insurance Acts. Copies of the returns must be laid annually before both Houses of the Oireachtas and copies must also be made available to the public for inspection in the Companies Registration Office.
The latest accounts of the Equitable Insurance Company Limited were received in my Department on 3rd April, 1963. I was satisfied after examination of these accounts that the company was insolvent. I then petitioned the Court under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1936, to have the company wound up.
Claims of policy-holders will be dealt with by the liquidator of the company in accordance with the law.
For the information of policy-holders with the company in respect of insurance on tractors, motor cars and any other such risks, while such policies are still running in point of time are these policy-holders covered for insurance or must they seek fresh insurance now?
In so far as the company is insolvent and in so far as the liquidator will be unable to secure sufficient assets to pay these, to that extent they would not be covered. It is likely that there will not be sufficient assets there. Therefore, it would be in the interests of those insured with the company to look after their policies. In the meantime, in so far as motor insurance is concerned, there is in existence the Motor Insurance Bureau which may provide for third party compensation claims when an insured motorist finds himself not covered.
Personal risk only.
Third party risk.
Personal risk.
Having regard to the very heavy losses in which a farmer, perhaps, might be involved by reason of an accident to his tractor, as a result of which the life of one or two persons might be lost, do I take it that the Minister would advise such persons to seek immediate cover from a solvent insurance company and not to rely on any claim against them being met by a company which he now says is insolvent?
As I said in my reply, it looks as if the company is not solvent. The liquidator may not be able to get sufficient money to meet claims made against him. I can say no more.
Could I ask the Minister if this company submitted its statutory account in respect of the year 1962, within the fixed period laid down by the 1938 Act?
The statutory period, with due allowance for extension, expired at the end of March, 1963. As I said in my reply, they submitted their accounts ultimately on 3rd April last, that is, within a matter of days, my office in the meantime having contacted them in the matter.
Are we to take it that the Minister was not aware until April that there was any uncertainty as to the financial position of this company, that they did submit their accounts in respect of the year 1962, according to the statutes?
Yes; they must submit their accounts within six months of the end of the financial year which these accounts covered—1962. The Minister has discretion to extend the period by a further three months, which is usually given in the case of a company seeking such concession. Therefore, statutorily, they were obliged to submit their accounts by the end of March, 1963. They did not do so until 3rd April, as I said, my office having contacted them in the meantime.
Could the Minister say if in previous years the accounts had been submitted regularly?
Yes and, on examination, did not indicate insolvency.
If, acting prudently, an insured person now decides to get his risks covered by another and solvent insurance company, do I take it there will be a legitimate charge against the insolvent company, through the Receiver, for the additional expense involved in getting a risk covered twice because of the default of one of the companies?
The Deputy is trying to get me to answer questions off the cuff that would be somewhat difficult for a High Court judge to answer.
I assure the Minister that there is a considerable number of people who are bewildered as to what their legal position is with this company. I have had letters and personal inquiries asking is it safe to assume that the company can continue to meet risks; whether there are any assets left and what is the proportion of the assets to the liabilities. I want to try to give guidance to the public. I am not concerned with a political point at all.
I am not saying it is a political point; I have said it is a legal point.
In view of the fact that the question in the name of Deputy Kyne specifically concerns one of the points mentioned by Deputy Norton, may I ask the Minister now, in view of the fact that a large number of my constituents have policies taken out with this company, to state the position as far as the law is concerned, as far as the Garda Síochána are concerned? Is an individual who has a policy taken out with this company, as far as the Garda Síochána are concerned, within the law at the moment, fully insured.
That is another question that I would imagine one would require legal training and legal assistance to answer.
I do not want to ask the Minister as a layman to answer this awkward question, but in view of the importance to the general public and the people who have policies taken out with this company, would the Minister be prepared to make a statement within a short space of time to clarify the position? May I get an answer from the Minister?
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything beyond what I have said in reply to the first question by Deputy Norton on this point.
Will it be necessary on this issue to table a series of questions next week for the Minister in order to have the position clarified?
I do not think I could clarify the position. I am not the liquidator. It is the liquidator who has to say what the assets of the company are.
Is the Minister aware that quite a large number of the public are involved in this?
I know, and I am very concerned about the public who are involved, I can assure the Deputy.
How are they to have their fears calmed in this matter?
This has gone on interminably.
To ensure that there will never be a recurrence, will the Minister now implement the 1936 Act by permitting the bringing in of a reassurance company?
That is purely hypothetical.
It is not. It is a section of the 1936 Act which has never been implemented.
It is outside the province of the question. Question No. 39.
In respect of the statutory requirement——
I have called Question No. 39. I will not allow the Deputy to proceed any further.
There is always next week, Sir.
