|
AMP is one of Australia\'s largest insurers. Does it take advantage of what appears as a largely dysfunctional (non thinking) legal system? Or is there something more sinister involved - does AMP have judges on its payroll? After a careful examination of one case in particular our Artificial Intelligence(5GL-Lisa) has left a question mark about this - you be the jury.
A Mr Alan Thomas (not real name) owned a factory which caught fire. Mr Thomas was insured with AMP. AMP refused to pay, claiming Mr Thomas deliberately lit the fire. They persuaded a judge of this - but AMP failed to score a point with the police because had this been true, Mr Thomas would have to be charged with the criminal offense of arson.
It could well be that in deciding whether to honour a contract, AMP takes into account if you can afford the costs of the High Court (and 99% of Australians are not in a position to do so) and if not they may reject your claim using their own techniques, such as accusing you of starting the fire. In the existing Anglo-Saxon legal system \"truth\" and \"facts\" are simply not that important - if you can persuade a judge about something valid or invalid that is perfectly tolerable. (Sure, it may depend on which manager in AMP refuses such claims, some might have a deeper motive.)
Unless you are charged by police with arson, you are not guilty in law which is the only thing any barrister and judge can take legally into account - this judge in question either knows not law, which is unlikely, or else about the only plausible explanation assuming the man is not a complete idiot who believes anything, he is in fact on the payroll of AMP. Can you find a more intelligent explanation for this than what our Artificial Intelligence has?
How has AMP changed since some years back when it was known as the best? Giant industries are about money and more money and if there is no more cows to be milked then one way to improve profits is to not to give the milk to those who have a natural right to it - it is possible that AMP\'s profits can no longer increase because the market is saturated and perhaps they have a new policy in place, a policy to avoid at all costs paying out large claims?
AMP was asked about this. Their response was not reassuring. According to their head office they settle claims \'in a fair way\' and have their own independent arbitrators. Now, this is the point at which our Artificial Intelligence \'halted\' - why would you need to settle a claim in \'a fair way\' when it is a question of a YES or NO? Why would you need your own arbitrators in a YES or NO situation?
|
