Episode 11: 2026 Claims Hero Insurance Awards | Claims Hero The Podcast

Speaker 1 All right, welcome to the Claims Hero Podcast. Today I'm joined by Alex, Rach and Tash. Welcome. Speaker 2 Thank you. Speaker 3 Thank you. Speaker 4 Nice to be here again. Speaker 1 Great. Well, today's podcast is a little bit different. Today we are doing the 2026 Claims Hero Insurance Awards and in Claims Hero themed we have Hero awards and we have villain awards excellent the different categories. And today we will be talking through those and announcing who the winners and losers of those awards. So to be clear upfront, these awards have been voted by the Claims Hero team based on our experiences in terms of the enquiries that we deal with, the claims that we've managed, what we see on social media, not on a broader public survey. There are terms and conditions. I'm a compliance guy on our website which talks about how we came up with these winners and losers, but we will make that available in the notes below to have a look at. First, we're going to look at vulnerability and award for the insurer that's best at managing vulnerability in our opinion. So around the room, I thought we'd start by asking you guys and you don't know who's won from the team voting, who you think the insurer is likely going to be. And then probably just what your experiences have been with that insurer, insurers more broadly around vulnerability and why you think that insurer is probably likely to win. We'll start with Alex. Speaker 3 From my experience, I'd have to say Suncorp has the best vulnerability support. My experience with them is that they're one good at identifying it. Quite often leads were referred to or enquire about our services and they're already in that vulnerability team. And when they're managing that vulnerability process, they're good at adapting their processes, listening and understanding, trying to understand what that vulnerability is so they can actually adapt their process and way of working in the claim to kind of manage that. And overall, that's been in place and working very well for quite some time from my experience. Speaker 1 Tash any difference there? Speaker 2 No, I actually do have the same agreement prior to Claims Hero's engagement. If a client lodges a claim with the Suncorp group and they do disclose their vulnerability or that vulnerability is picked up, they their claim is often transferred to the vulnerability team to be managed. So they're a specialist team that is designed to appropriately put them in contact with support services. They have a different way of managing claims like if you have ADV background, for example, and for me for my own claim history, having female trades attending instead of having male trains, there are lots of different processes that they can put in place for clients to get through their claim process and help support those vulnerabilities. So from from my perspective of what I've seen prior to our engagement, I would agree that Suncorp has the the better system there. Speaker 1 Yeah, I must admit, when it comes to Suncorp, we've never had them push back on a request like that. You know, if we have a client that's vulnerable and they would like female trades to attend, there's never an argument about whether that should happen or shouldn't happen. They're just very quick to do. Speaker 2 It as long as it's available, then yeah, they're being quite flexible with it. Speaker 1 For sure, Rach. Speaker 4 I am going to have to agree with everyone else's point there. And yeah, I would say Suncorp. And I think like Tash said, obviously when there is the more extreme circumstances and they'll put stuff in place where they can. But I think even on the sort of other end of the spectrum, even if you've got maybe an elderly client who doesn't use, you know, computers, emails, they will adapt with that as well. So I've found that they're they're quick to sort of change maybe how they communicate with the clients just to make sure that they've got full understanding of everything as well. So I think they do kind of cover that full spectrum of, you know, vulnerabilities. Speaker 1 Yeah. So I think, look, I would agree. I mean, obviously who won and I don't think it's going to be a surprise based on this conversation. Do you know that you know who's won? Yeah, I know I'm the only one that knows who who has won. But I think when you look at Suncorp, they have a standalone team. Yeah, I've met the person who runs that team. I've constantly referred to them as the the nicest person I've ever met who works in insurance and the most compassionate. And I've seen that first hand with them where they genuinely care. And the truth is that's not always the case, even in other insurers that have teams like this. But I feel like Suncorp is just ahead of everyone in terms of vulnerability, the investment in it. And I think that that's the thing that we always say to ensure is that if you're going to do stuff around vulnerability, you have to invest in, it's going to cost my it's not for free. And a lot of people do surface level stuff, but I've personally seen some called go above and beyond for customers and pay for things that they wouldn't normally. And the only other one that I'd say that is sort of well, there's probably two others that are trying their best. I think I AG so the NRMA type brands are trying. I don't think they're anywhere near as far advanced as what Suncorp is around vulnerability. And I've also noted with Hollard that they're also, you know, they seem to be going down that path, which is good. Speaker 2 It's becoming a greater understanding and appreciation for what clients have gotten to a point doing in their claim with their own personal experiences. So I think some of those ones like IAG and and Holland, they're starting to get there in the process. Speaker 1 All right. Well, we might put a bit of a drum roll on this production, but the winner of the Hero award for vulnerability management is no surprises here, Suncorp. And it was a resounding win. It was pretty much the entire team voted Suncorp for vulnerability. And I think that that says something because it that also includes our support staff who deal with Suncorp. They see the claims, they see the inquiries, they talk to all of them. It just sort of shows that that's they're above and beyond compared to to others. It doesn't mean they always get it right. And I think today for any of these awards that we give, it doesn't mean that for every customer they get it right. But from a Suncorp perspective, I think that they're well and truly winners in that category. Now, the reverse of that category is the villain award. Now, when we say villain for this, we don't mean, you know, an actual evil character. Villain, as in probably what we've observed, is the worst behaviour potentially or or the least consistently good behaviour around vulnerability management. We might start with Tash this time. Speaker 2 Oh there's a couple. I think my vote on this one I'm actually going to send to RACQ. I have found their compassion to be severely lacking in regards to clients in general, but those with a vulnerability, I find their their lack of understanding, their lack of empathy is completely not there. So they get they get my vote on the the worst. Speaker 1 Alex. Speaker 3 I think RSCQ is on a bit of a journey I think, you know, they've come under the IAG banner recently so I'm seeing some change there. I'd like don't disagree with you. I have seen some probably poor vulnerability management practices in the past. My vote though would go to Auto in general and their brands. They have a vulnerability support team, I think they call it the high care team. But comparing them to Suncorp, it doesn't feel or seem that they listen, care, They're the high care team, but there seems to be a lack of care really around actually understanding what those vulnerabilities are and then making any changes. It seems there's a little bit you go to that team and it's exactly the same process regarded less of what your vulnerability is. And at times it feels like or it seems like that vulnerability can be used against the client, whether that's, you know, they're concerned about moving back into a home that might be mold impacted. They're worried about their children who might get impacted by that mold. And then they start to use that running out of temper Comm as a bit of a a piece to try and push them into a settlement or into a decision, right. So it's quite the opposite to a Suncorp or an IIG who might actually say, well, we'll extend it for a little bit longer because we've caused that delay. All right, So my vote would definitely be budget direct auto in general. Speaker 1 Yep, right. Speaker 4 I am with Alex on this one for very similar reasons. I think like you say, they do either notice it themself, A vulnerability or whether that's been raised directly with them. And yeah, absolutely, they do see that. But then they go, oh, or they can go, oh, well, here's a vulnerability. How can we use this and manipulate this to get the claim? Speaker 1 Closed. Speaker 4 Settled as quick as we can and just get the client off the books. So I think they they are aware of it, but they yeah, they use it against the consumer as opposed to using it to help them get into a better position. Speaker 1 Yeah, well, anyone who has listened to this podcast or seen anything that I write online, this insurer is by far the worst, the most disgusting behavior I have ever seen in insurance has happened on multiple claims or consistently across inquiries that I have seen, like they have a high care team. And when the claim is transferred there, I think it gets worse. And I I think it, you know, we've seen it on claims that we've managed, but it's also been enough to determinations where they're cutting temporary come off for, you know, women with who are single mothers with children. And we're after put in the determination that they've done that and that it was wrong. And there seems like at this insurer there are no controls to stop that behavior. And when we have raised it up the chain to management, nothing changes. They double down, they triple down, they quadruple down as you go up and as you. It's just horrendous, horrendous behavior. Speaker 3 Tell us how you really feel. Speaker 1 What I really feel is that God help you if you find yourself with a claim with this insurer because there, there is no compassion there. There also seems to be no funding whatsoever to actually help a customer that's vulnerable. They will not change their processes. They'll redact all your information when they give you file notes so that you can't even advocate for yourself. So tell them you're vulnerable and then they'll redact everything that they provide to you in terms of file notes. So you can't even advocate your position. Like it's horrendous. Speaker 3 I the really concerning from my perspective is that I actually think that most of the time, at least from the claims we've seen, the vulnerability's been created by the way the claim has been managed, yeah. Speaker 1 How do we've seen? Speaker 3 That the person isn't vulnerable prior to the claim they've become vulnerable, whether it's from mental health issues, whether it's from temper calm challenges, concerns to their children, illnesses from you know, related to the event, whether that's mole or something else. And then that's used against them. It's it's quite shocking, yeah. Speaker 1 It's gaslighting. They never admit a mistake or error like a customer raising legitimate concerns that they know about. They just reject them, deny them, drag them through an Africa complaint process unnecessarily. They the way they present information to Africa is misleading in my opinion. And then they're not providing the information. They're withholding reports and quotes. They get 2 quotes on every claim and they pick the cheaper one late. Everything about this insurer is designed to exploit consumers at claim time. So for that reason, the winner unanimously every single vote went to auto in general. So congratulations, the Villain award for vulnerability Management goes to Auto and General think. Speaker 4 That's well deserved. Speaker 2 Yeah, if we cheered some club, will we? Will we? Speaker 3 Auto and general, yeah, poor John. I think the point you raised before about how these votes have been calculated and includes our support staff that talks to the leads. It's not just our claims, no, yeah, that we're managing. It's also from the leads and enquiries that are coming in. It's a similar experience that they're experiencing and that we see time and time again. Speaker 1 So they see, they see the emails from our clients that are in horrendous situations and and how they're being treated, the stress that it causes also to our staff trying to manage that because we're trying to support these customers and they're in highly sensitive situations. And all the supports that would normally exist with other insurers just don't exist. So I think universally the team understand that and they see that which says all you need to know. All right. On the more positive topics, we're moving on to best claims management. So to be clear, when we talk about this, we're not just talking about claims management. Once we're involved, it's kind of the claims management that we see that might come to claim 0. But then also obviously once we're engaged, how they manage the claims after that point. I think that it's important to also consider a part of what we're looking at here is when they might do the repairs or offer to do the repairs, how they investigate claims, how they engage experts, how they pay their experts. All of that sort of comes into this because those are all the parts that need to come together for good claims management. So Rach, from your perspective, who is the top one or who are the top couple? Speaker 4 I would say, and obviously this will not be a claims experience, you know, for everyone. I do think NRMA in particular, I feel like they are showing that they're listening to the consumer a little bit more. If they are not happy with, you know, certain reports, works findings, whatever that may be. I've seen on multiple occasions that they have then found another supplier to, to go out to, you know, have comparison results, findings, whatever that may be. And the consumer generally can have sight of that, which I think is really important. I know we were talking about vulnerability before, but you know, they are listening to the consumer, they're being relatively transparent with them regarding their findings, what they're basing their, you know, scopes on or the settlement, whatever that may be. So I think just that in itself is is probably quite a quite a strong reasoning for them I think. Speaker 1 It's always telling. If an insurer acts transparently, so they're giving information freely, are they willing to make changes? You know, as soon as they start digging their heels in, it often means that, at least from a consumer perspective, it's not going to feel like the process. Speaker 4 Is, and I think it's the changes that are sort of my main reasoning for suggesting them. Just like I say, if a consumer's genuinely not happy with something, they're not doubling down on it. They're going or more often than not, they're going. OK, well, let's get someone else in to make sure that that is not like a completely biased view or whatever that may be. So. Speaker 1 Yep, Alex. Speaker 3 It's hard to name one but I might name a few. I think IG. I think that's a great point. You see it through the enquiries that we get as well, NRMAIRG, they're like one of the larger insurers and the proportion of inquiries we get is less, which shows that there's kind of less complaints and concerns with their complaints management. So less people are needing our support. So I think that's a great indicator of the management of the claim when they're managing it. We also hear feedback from suppliers as well who they engage on the process. Then they prefer to work for an NRMA because they're getting paid fair rates to do the work. Speaker 1 Which is important, right? Speaker 3 Hugely important because it means that they're actually, you know, prioritizing those claims to deliver and resolve them quicker and earlier and do the right job because they're getting paid the right amount versus some other supply insurers who pay not enough. So the suppliers don't want to do the work. They might try and decline the claim, do things like that, or if they do get the work and they don't have enough money, they're going to do a poor job, right? I think other notable mentions, you know, we've spoken about Suncorp and their vulnerability support. I think another kind of strength around Suncorp that we at least experience when we're managing the claim is that they will take evidence from the client or the insured, sorry, rather than just looking at their own evidence. And if that evidence objectively and reasonably disputes their own evidence, they will actually overturn their decision and reconsider that. From our experience, again, some insurers don't do that, both IG and Suncorp. I feel that from an empathy perspective, they have that empathetic, caring touch. The people there do truly care. I could list a lot of insurers, but you know, just some other notable mention. I think Allianz is on the approve as well. We've seen some better experiences there, at least when we're managing the claims with them whole lot as well. We've had some, you know, really difficult claims with them where they've showed a really empathetic and caring approach to resolve those. And even recently we've had some great meetings with Yuli around that as well. So I think those guys are on the way up. It's Suncorp and IG at the top for me. Speaker 1 Yep, and Tash. Speaker 2 I don't differ much in my opinion here, agree with completely with what you said. We don't see as many NRMAIAG kind of claims come through as we do some of the other insurers. So I think from that perspective they must be doing something right on their frontline, which is great to hear. And then that also potentially means that their complaint process is probably doing a little, little bit better than some of the other ones when it comes post our engagement. I definitely think there are some that engage better with us than others. Allianz is doing a great job of engaging with us and getting some better outcomes for clients. Some Corp has been consistent in that approach with us as well. NRMAI haven't had as many of theirs, but when I do they're up there as well and they're certainly better than some of the other ones. Speaker 1 Yeah, I would tend to agree. I find Australian owned insurers or run insurers, so those with that are ASX listed, for example, those that are building brands often are performing better because they care about their customer and they're trying to do the right thing. You see that in that. I think that the Suncorps and Igs of the world genuinely try to repair homes because a lot of people come to us when there's a dispute about a cash settlement and when there's a problem with how much they're being offered. And when you talk to the NRMA's of the world, what they're paying their supplies is a good rate. And then when there's an event, they're paying them a little bit more. So what we see after events is that builders tend to do the NRMA rebuilds and then on the ones that are paying them less, they want to cash settle those claims. They're going, oh, that's pre-existing issues, we can't warrant the repairs. So those customers then feel the consequences of that, which is that the insurer is not going to repair their home or you have some insurers that focus heavily on pre-existing maintenance issues to try and get out of doing like actual repairs. If I'm with Suncorp and IG, that's not really the case. I am biased towards Suncorp because I did work there for a long time. And I think that anyone who worked at Suncorp will always say that there's good people there. And certainly our experience as you go up through management is that there are really good people there trying to do the right thing. And even when we have met with executives and this goes across IAG and Suncorp, you know, they acknowledged that they don't get it right all the time and that they need to improve. And I think what we've experienced with a lot of these insurers is that when they don't treat us like the enemy, what what we're often raising is that some issues that need to be addressed, opportunities to improve. And if you actually work with this, it's an opportunity to save the relationship with the customer. And just because they have a claim and just because the claims gone off track doesn't mean that you don't want them as a customer moving forward. So for those reasons, I I do think that those. Speaker 2 Some insurers don't want them as customers going forward after a claim, but that's nothing. Speaker 1 Get to the cost. No, it's actually just the next award we'll get to, to be fair. So it won't be surprising for me to say that we did actually have a complete tie for the Hero award on claims management, which was not surprisingly Suncorp NIAG as the winners there, which you know, as we've said, pretty consistent feedback there. We do have an award coming up from the best improver or the biggest improver. So there was a few people there who were, well, few insurers, I should say there that are trying their best and maybe they'll catch them. All right. Well, we will move on to the villain award for claims management. So the insurer that we think has the biggest opportunity to improve from here, we might go in reverse order. Tash, who would you say? Speaker 2 I am completely unsure if they are even capable of improvement. So there's I guess if you're right at the bottom the technically the only way is up but we'll reserve that for any future assessments. Mine is going to go to order. In general hands down and referring to the previous point, common practice. Once you've gotten through your terrible claims experience, if you've made it out the other side in one piece or in a multiple pieces, you can pretty much be prepared to look for insurance elsewhere on your next renewal. I either because you don't want to be insured with them further anymore or be because you know no longer meet their underwriting guidelines for staying insured. Speaker 1 Cancel the policy. Speaker 2 Yes. So I think that their entire process is flawed from start to finish. Yeah, I I actually genuinely cannot see how they can improve. Also can't see how they can get any worse, but I just think they're about as low as you can get. Speaker 3 Yeah. Speaker 1 Alex. Speaker 3 I think it's going to be a clean sweep. I have to guess, yeah, that it's going to be again, auto in general. I think there's a, as you said, when you go through the beginning to end that claims process, I think they'd be probably ranking the worst in most of them. Whether it's, you know, provision of information, payment of their suppliers, proportion of claims that their cash settling, identifying excessive maintenance issues without guidance to the client, inability to provide effective vulnerability support the quality of the works that get done, declining claims that shouldn't be declined. We see it all in our leads and the and the claims that we manage. Objectively looking at new evidence to consider if they made a decision, incorrect decision, acknowledging an error, whatever it might be. They're, you know, pretty terrible from our experience and from the leads that we speak to. I do think you raised a good point before Luke around the Australian based insurers and them probably trying to build a brand in Australia and doing the right thing. Auto in general is not an Australian based insurer. They're not publicly listed. I think that can then flows through into their claims management processes in the ways they work. It seems like there's a very heavy push on marketing media getting more clients while less of a focus on actually managing those claims effectively once they come through. Speaker 1 Well, it's a shame that people don't refer to them as auto in general, like Budget Direct, Qantas Insurance, Kohl's insurance, the underlying insurer for all of those is auto in general. So whenever like they're not building their own brand, they're using other brands and hiding behind it in terms of. Speaker 2 Well, you can pick any more of an Aussie brand than Qantas. It's disappointing to the underwrite, and they're underwritten by somebody who has. Speaker 3 They're ruining their brand, yeah. Speaker 1 They they found a, they found an insurer that has just as poor services they give to the airline customers. So maybe that's a perfect match. Speaker 2 Maybe I. Speaker 1 Don't know if you've ever tried to complain about something to Qantas like you get the same response. Speaker 2 The spirit of Australia certainly falls out the I'll send when it comes to budget direct and auto in general and therefore Qantas insurance. Speaker 1 Yeah, I mean, it's a real a really show. I'm actually going to attend the Qantas AGM, so I'm going to put some questions to the board about their endorsement of Auto and General as their insurer. And I my understanding and as a Qantas shareholder, I want to get to the bottom of how much money did they have to pay you? Because my understanding from talking to other people was that there was a dollar figure in terms of millions they had to make. Well, they had to make from someone, you know, well, they're putting their name on an insurance product. And there was only one insurer that was willing to pay that much money because all the others didn't think it would be viable to pay that much money. And for the board, it's like, how do you think they can pay you so much money? Where do you save the money claims, right. And it's, and for me, I'm like, as a, you know, as a, as a shareholder of Qantas, they should care about their customers and they shouldn't just be selling them out to make a bit more money for the bottom line. Speaker 2 The saying goes, money talks and. Speaker 3 Money talks. Speaker 2 Yeah, money talks, that's all. That's all they're interested in. Speaker 1 And that's what I mean, I'm like when it comes to insurance in general as a as an Australian population, they don't understand it. And there's really big differences between these insurers that consumers need to understand and the policies that are being sold. And as a board that overseas that if they're just putting a dollar value on it and then selling out their customers to have terrible claims experiences, well then I think they need to be held accountable for that. And that's same for Coles Insurance. I look forward to attending that AGM as well because I think, you know, both of them are clearly doing similar things. And the 1.5 star ratings that they both have on product review should tell them how well the underwriter is doing with selling those products. And I think that, you know, to a certain extent they should be held liable for the fact that they're signing their customers up to this. And I think they need to do better to make sure that the company that's doing that is going to provide a good service. And it's not just about making a dollar, right? Speaker 4 Do you need to ask? Yes. Also in general. I think one of the main points for me though is obviously everything that has just been listed. But I think it's forgetting that when someone is making a claim for their home, you know, that's the heart of their life, where their family lives, where, you know, all these memories, whatever. And that just gets treated as though there's actually no person behind it. So obviously everything we talked about with no transparency and it's keeping everything, you know, redacted and whatnot, even if it's it's asked for explicitly, I think they're completely forgetting that these people, you know, they have a right to know what's going on with their own home. That's it's so close to them. It's their complete life. And it's just like that's been forgotten about. They've got all other tick boxes to go through, like you say, money making scheme, whatever that yeah, they're actually forgetting the purpose of the product, the purpose why they're there. And these consumers are just left high and dry with all these different, you know, medical concerns, financial concerns, family breakdowns, all these things that could have been avoided had they been treated like a person and actually cared for by the, you know, the company that's they're supposed to do that. Speaker 2 Claims cost them money, so claims is an inconvenience to their business, whereas selling policies and their billions of dollars that they spend on advertising in order to sell policies is where their focus is. Speaker 1 Well, I think that becomes clear, right. And it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone where my vote would go on this, but it is clear that their entire claims process is built to save money from the second it's lodged. It's they're doing searches on customers in the back to see whether did they disclose everything they should have when they took out a policy. They're looking at policy terms to think about how can we get out of paying this. As I've said, you know, we've dealt a lot with the good condition policy term that they have in there in their home insurance policy, which basically says your home has to be free from all damage, which is unrealistic. And then what they do is they use that to basically not have to repair as many properties because their builders will go in and say, oh, they're not in good condition. And they'll say to customers, well, you can do this $50,000 of completely unnecessary works under a good condition letter. And then we'll do the repairs. And then customers go, well, I'm not going to do that. Oh, well then you're electing to cash settle, rely on this policy term that says we'll only pay you what it costs us to get the works done. And we've already gone and got 2 quotes and we're going to cash settle you on the lower one. And this is coming from staff that this is built into the process. And it's like every part of their claims management process, even it's not going to shock people who know there are suppliers in this industry who are known for downplaying and being cheaper than everyone else. And then it's those suppliers are the only ones that are then on the panel for auto in general, at least with the other insurers, they might be on their panel, but they have other providers. And Rachel, when you talk about it, can we use a different provider? They're like, yeah, sure, no problem, right? Because they're not running their whole business to reduce those costs in that process. It amazes me how much money this company will spend to defend a claim and to reduce the costs, how often they'll go to an after determination on a point because they know the longer that it drags out, it is the pressure that builds on a consumer. And it's, you know, we've seen so many terrible examples of where people end up and we're seeing that we can pick from the inquiry whether it's going to be auto and general budget direct Qantas insurance, because it's the tell tale signs there. And it's the same reason when you look on the review websites or you look on public, if you actually look on Glassdoor, if they're employees, they'll tell you this is what's happening there as well. Speaker 2 And I think that's a really important point to remember as well. These decisions come from the higher ups in order in general and their subsequent brands. It's the frontline staff are doing what they're told to do, what they're trained to do. So we know from personal experiences because we have had staff reach out that have said, you know, I sit in my car in my lunch break and cry like so the staff that are doing the jobs, they're unfortunately copying the brunt of it and the pressure is coming from above them. So I think that's really important to know to those staff. There are plenty of other insurance out there who are good employees employers to have a look at. So oh. Speaker 1 100% And if you're aware of misconduct or you think it might be misconduct, there are whistleblower protections. If you go to ASIC, make sure you read the policies and do it the right way. But it needs to be called out because, you know, I know that you're doing a job and you need a job, but engaging in that behaviour that results in significant consumer harm. I don't know how people get up and go to work there. I really don't. And I, I've heard from people that, you know, they, they need the paycheck and that's fair enough. But when we talk about Suncorp as we go up the ranks, you know, we, we really make good people who are trying to do the right thing. We've met with plenty of people at order in general at all levels. And there's a lot of gas lighting where it's like we are did the best. We care about our customers. We're trying to do the same thing. Insurance solved on the ads. It's not it's, you know, insurance is worthless is basically what happens sometimes if you build a whole model around making a lot of money, there's no accountability because it's not publicly listed. So for consumers and even for companies like us or for others that are trying to hold them accountable, it just makes it so difficult and so difficult for our customers. So for that reason, congratulations to order on General Budget Direct. You have won your second villain award in a row for worst claims management. No surprises there that it was unanimous again. All right, the next one and we might do this one together. This is for complaints handling. So it is the best and worst complaints handling. I think complaints are really important point in claims management and we've done podcast, we did a podcast on complaints. It's an opportunity for insurers to intervene and correct something that may not be going right at the time. And far too often we see that those complaints teams might not be as independent as what they should be and they're not intervening and correcting errors or mistakes. So if we start with Alex, from a complaints handling perspective, best and worst. Speaker 3 If we define complaints handling specifically as the internal dispute resolution and external dispute resolution functions, I couldn't give a best. Personally, I don't think any of them are great. I think the proportion of claims that get overturned or decisions that get overturned through that process is not where it should be. I think there's a lot of drivers to that. I think there's not enough separation between those teams and the claims teams. I don't think there's enough delegation that those teams have to make those decisions. I've even heard that some of those teams have KPIs, key performance indicators and targets around maintaining decisions, right? So as a percentage, if they have a maintain rate of 80%, they need to maintain that, overturn one decision the claims team made, the next four they have to maintain, right, which is not what that should be. The KPI should be in the claims team making the right decision in the 1st place, right? So putting that to side the IDR and EDR function, I couldn't say this is the best because I haven't seen a great one personally during the claims that we've managed or from the people that I talked to in the leads process. However, there are insurers that we work with in the claims team where when they do get new information, they can acknowledge an error and overturn that decision. I reflect on a great meeting we had recently with UE where there was a store, what decision we came in, we presented the evidence and they said, oh, straight away we we want to apologize. We've made the wrong decision there, overturned it straight away. So that was a really good example. We've seen that as well with Allianz recently. They've been objectively looking at evidence and saying we made the wrong decision. We're, you know, they're acknowledging the error and that's really great. It's not something you see from many insurers that acknowledgement of errors. So I'll probably give it to you in Allianz recently based on those recent experiences that have fond of mind. I feel like this is hard to say the worst without just continuing to say it in general, but I'm going to say it anyway. Speaker 1 We assume they lose like who is the next worst because it unfortunately it sounds like we're just, it's a gang up. Yeah, but it's not. It's just there's so many examples for this insurer, the truth of whether it's too far. Speaker 3 So I, I think look, we're, we've personally been working with RACQ and they, we've seen some improvement. I I still think they're probably the worst in their acknowledging their own errors. Yeah. When new evidence is presented and objectively looking at something when there's a complaint and saying, yes, we've made that error, I think there's still a lot of room for improvement there. They may change the decision. There's never the apology and acknowledgement of the error, which for a lot of our clients and customers who've been through a really difficult insurance process, they've felt gaslit through that entire process. Sometimes the apologies as much as changing the decision. Yeah, right. And acknowledging. Speaker 1 We made more about the apology. Speaker 3 Yeah, exactly right. So I'll probably say RSEQ but with ING underneath them unfortunately. Speaker 1 Tash. Speaker 2 So when we when we did this, I actually answered Suncorp as the better coming from IDR at Suncorp Sun Ternal dispute resolution. Speaker 3 That sounds like a conflict hang on my previous IDR. Speaker 1 Decisions do a great job well. Speaker 2 That's where I that's where I'm coming from. I was very good at what I did, but I think in general from an IDR and EDR perspective, the people who are managing those complaints across the board with all insurers are not trained to to overturn decisions or to challenge reports and things like that. They're trained to read a report that's in front of them and go, OK, well that makes sense to me. It's come from a builder or it's come from an engineer. So that's got to be right. There is no challenge ability from those people from my perspective, looking outside of the box and things like that in the role. That's why I come in and say, you know, I liked what I did and I was good at challenging decisions. So from that perspective, Suncorp was up there. I do think you we have a better process and have had more success in looking at their own decisions than some of the others. If we're going to do the the decline side of it as well, the the negative bill and one mine unfortunately does stand with RACQ and yes, because budget is still right down the bottom, but from the rest of the insurers RACQ, their response just is constantly a no, you know, have you, have you considered this? No. Have you looked at this? Would you know? Here's another report. No, this is our position. That's it. And I think that's been my frustration with RACQ in general. Is there no position so they get the villain for me? Speaker 1 Yeah, makes sense. I've experienced that as well, Rach. Speaker 4 I would say when it when it comes to claims that we are handling very recently, probably the last month or so, I'd say Allianz have actually sort of turned a new leaf if you will. Again, that is when we've become involved. I'm not saying that that is what the complaints handling process is like for a lot of consumers, but I think very recently they have sort of taken a different approach of actually reviewing everything. And like you said, Tash, it's not just reviewing the reports and evidence that they've obtained. They're actually reviewing things as a whole and going, oh, actually that's not right. They may need something else to confirm a decision, whatever that may be. But they are taking that step back, looking at everything as a sort of bigger picture and then, you know, changing decisions if if that's sort of required, they just seem a lot more open to, you know, change a bit more there again, though, that is like my experience with the claims that we're handling, I would say for the villain and I would have to agree with RACQ. Just again, for the point blank, no, there's not really much more to it. Or you'll be given all this evidence and they just can often almost copy and paste the previous communication that just says no, this is our decision. OK, cool. But why? Like you're not giving us anything to work with here. You're just saying no. Again, that's down to transparency. We're not telling you why we think that. But no. And actually, if they were to be honest and transparent, I don't know what their reasoning could be. It could be to do with KPIs. I'm not too sure. It could be, you know, whatever that may be, but it's definitely there's no sort of backing for their decisions. After saying that. There has been some recent sort of comments made during sort of on sites and whatnot that do admit to failures and that's fine. But that's not when it's being the complaints handling that is more just comments on review and that ultimately maybe doesn't make it into those decision letters. Speaker 1 Yeah, Yeah. I think those are all good points to be fair. And when it comes to complaints handling in general, the insurers that perform the worst are those that refuse to answer questions. Yeah. And I think when those teams really look at what they're doing, it's a win at all cost mentality and RSCQ end order in general at times that it's felt like they had the one company because they're using such similar tactics. It's if you can't answer a question because it would not be favourable to you, what they will do is just ignore the question or they'll do a Trump and bike. You're a nasty advocate asking that question. How dare you. What a ridiculous question that is. You're wasting time. You're I mean, the the things that those companies have accused us of in trying to advocate for consumers is terrible. But it does show that if you're willing in front of Africa to not answer a question to win against a customer when you're a billion dollar organization, as I think we said in that podcast, it doesn't make you smart, but you should be very ashamed of yourself for it. It's a pretty much right and. If that's the way it's structured for you to do that and you're well, we know they've got KPI's about winning Africa determinations. And I think the problem is, is the further you go into an AFKA complaint, the more companies like RACQ and Order in general double down, triple down or cross lines that they shouldn't have previously. They'll use experts that they know is going to give favourable outcomes. They've refused to make any change at all in that process. They'll withhold information, they'll redact it. You know we'll. Speaker 2 Blatantly lie. Speaker 1 Well, we, yeah, a lot. We've caught plenty of insurers and we've caught insurers changing responses from suppliers. And that's where I'm like that when it all cost mentality internally can really cross boundaries that if a customer did they call them fraudulent. Yeah. And I would love to be able to enact the powers they have around when they think it can shoot them as fraudulent for when an insurer could be fraudulent. Speaker 3 Because get the investigators out, yeah. Speaker 1 Investors down an in person recorded interview. You can, you can have a support person, but they can't say anything and you've got to answer truthfully. And if you withhold it, we'll cancel your insurance license. That would be a. Speaker 2 Fly on the wall in that one. Speaker 1 Wouldn't that be shut down quickly for some of them to be fair? But it's this thing around transparency and what's fair. And we've seen that obviously with those insurers in our experience once we get involved, but I can see it on social media that the larger ones, the Iags, the Suncorps, they are far more likely to overturn a decision in there. So it's not to say that it always fails, but it does seem for a lot of insurers, the more complicated it gets, the easier it is to maintain a decision. And we see that time and time again. And the insurers where we see improvement is to acknowledge that. To your point, Tash, just because an expert says something doesn't make it true and that you can still look at it objectively to go. But just because an engineer saying that mold is not related to the event, are they even an expert in that? Should they be commenting on that? Maybe they shouldn't. And that's where we've probably seen some insurers change their ways and look to improve their claims handling more broadly. The ones who refuse to accept any errors or issues, which for in general, I think, yeah, I've looked at probably like 15 IDR complaint responses and they've never once accepted a single issue or problem. And that's including one where they breached the authority on a claim 15 times. And then through that process, we've made complaints about that and they've maintained that they didn't breach it and they were entitled to do it. And then on the 15th time they go, actually, you know what, We do have a system limitation, which is meaning that that's why everyone's contacting you, the client directly. And I was like, OK, so why didn't IDR acknowledge that? Yeah, there is a limitation that's going on here. And it speaks to a culture of defend, deflect. And I think that for AFCA as well, they need to realise and acknowledge that these insurers are behaving this way. Because sometimes I feel like when you engage with Africa that they almost oblivious that this is happening. And then I feel like we've got to put our tinfoil hat on. But it's like we have actual examples to show that they engage this way and you can see it and customers feel it in communication as well. All right, well, the winner officially for best complaints handling was UE, so I tend to agree. I've dealt with UE's complaints handling and I've noticed that they are more willing to overturn the decision. The amount of leads we get from UE is actually quite small, which to me actually speaks to the fact that your complaints team is probably working effectively where you're identifying. Very rarely did someone come to us where they haven't at least complained to the insurer first. I think that UE has got something right in terms of their complaints handling and maybe the power that they give to those teams to overturn decisions And the worst complaints handling. Not unanimous this time. It was probably 70% of it went towards auto in general. So Budget Direct, Qantas insurance, 3 villain awards so far, it's unusual that that could happen when they win insurer of the year, until you realize the awards that they actually win have very little criteria at all. So for those who don't know, the Money magazine insurer of the year has one metric, which is premium cost and it's for the first year only. So as long as you've got the cheapest insurer, like you give the cheapest quote but obviously put a requirement that the house must be in good condition and perfect, which is nice. No wonder you can be the cheapest if there's no damage at all, which is an unrealistic standard. I always say it would be like giving someone person of the year if they've got the best toe. Like it's just such a small part of an insurance company and to have the name insurer of the year certainly seems misleading to me. So hopefully the A, triple C and other regulators take note of that because the advertising as I drive into work with billboards is 10 years in a row Insurer of the year. Thanks, Australia. I'm like, Australia didn't vote for it and you know it. You know it's a bullshit award and then you promote it to trick consumers into thinking that you are the insurer of the year. And what a rude shock it is, as we're finding today, when you make a claim and realise that they are certainly not the insurer of the year, they're the insurer of the year people into taking out policies. Speaker 2 Well, they did get done for the premium side of it as well. When you adjust your policy in that first year and your discount falls off. So your premium that you were judged on has now gone out the window. But I mean, I think if we're going to if there is going to actually be an award for insurer of the year, whether it be Money Magazine or Can Star or whatever it is, I think the criteria needs to be a little bit bigger than you know how much did the premium cost so. Speaker 1 And it's the narrative that we're trying to change, which is that don't just shop on price, yeah, because it could be the most costly thing you do because these policy terms are complicated at times and tricky. And insurers who seek to reduce costs at claims, particularly tricky when you line up their policy with their target market determination, their underwriting rules, because they're doing it so that when you make a claim, they can rescind the policy, give you back your premium and go, Oh yeah, sorry, your house is severely damaged, you're on your own. You didn't tell us that your house wasn't in good condition. And well, at after I could find out determinations in which our friends and order in general lost on that point where they tried to decline a policy and rescind it and decline the claim. They lost every single time. That behaviour around sending good condition letters to every customer hasn't changed. And to your point, Tash, cancelling policies during a claim is also a really difficult thing to do to a consumer because then you can't necessarily go and get cover somewhere else because you have to dispose that your home is damaged and therefore they're not going to give you that policy coverage. The other thing, you know, we were talking to executives of the insurer, I won't name them, but that that they're concerned that if they take customers from auto in general where they've had a claim that they haven't done the repairs properly or they haven't, or they've been cash settled too small, that they're concerned about even taking customers once you've been with that insurer. So it's not just us that are saying this, it's the industry that's aware of it. And it's one of the reasons we advocate to the Insurance Council of Australia to like clean up the bad behavior yourself. And they've got an opportunity with the code. And for those insurers out there that are doing the right thing, they're the ones that should be advocating to the Insurance Council of Australia. Just clean it up because you'll be getting rid of the bad actors. And then the reputation that insurers have, which is tarnished by insurers that engage in those practices, might actually improve in Australia. But. Speaker 2 I do think the rest of the industry does need to speak out. There are some great insurers in this country who are better at supporting and who have better claims experiences. And those companies that don't want to take on X Auto and general budget direct customers, they need to speak out to the industry and they need to let it be known because if they're just sitting on it, they're not doing anything to change, and change is what actually does need to happen. Speaker 1 Yeah. And they do speak out to me about it, but it's like maybe they need to speak out more broadly because they're losing customers to these insurers as well. They're losing market share and also they are dealing with increased costs because they're doing the right thing. This other insurer isn't. So their claims cost, their loss ratios are probably way less. That's why they can go off to Qantas and go, yeah, sure, we can pay you a lot of money for the right to be able to sell insurance products through you because at claims time it's it's not that's where they save their money. And I think that that's why for those boards you need to be aware of if other insurers are saying they don't want to do it, there's a reason for it and then you selling it is basically selling your customers out at that point. Speaker 3 Yeah, that's right. I think it's an interesting observation with the winner and loser there being UE and then the the winner being UE, loser being auto in general, both owned by overseas companies, not publicly listed. And we talked about that before as one of the drivers why IAG and Suncorp are great management of claims, but that does highlight that it can be done well. Speaker 2 Yeah. Speaker 3 Even if you are owned by an overseas company, it's just obviously there's a very different cultural approach there different, very different procedural approach. And UE is probably doing the right thing, while as auto in general is probably. Speaker 1 Not well. My observation of UE is that they're building a brand, you know the UE brand, they care about their name and the reputation that it has because they they want to sell it as UE forever. Where it's like if I'm wide labeling products as Qantas insurance, well then when that transitions to the next insurer, I mean, arguably if I'm order in general, I don't care. No, because I'm not tarnished by that. And then you see this when the other day A Current Affair ran a story on Oceana, I think auto in general didn't even get mentioned in the current Affair story. So it's like the the brand name is getting tarnished because of the claims handling practices. So like from an auto general perspective, like it's kind of genius because it's like, well, we don't need to invest in the brand. If the claims handling is bad and we cancel policies, it doesn't impact them as order in general because the general public don't even know what a white label product is. For those who don't know, it's literally just where I whack Qantas insurance on an auto and general policy and it's the exact same policy, just under a brand name. And you might get a few Qantas points for it, but for others, you get nothing else. And then if you go and compare the market which is owned by auto and General and I select which is owned by order and General, again, is there a pattern here everyone about how we're obtaining customers through trickery and not saying it's us? You then compare policies and five of the six are underwritten by order and general, but it's five different brand names that show up so. Speaker 2 I had a client ask the other day. She said, you know, when I went on compare the market to, you know, my renewal came up and I went on there to have a look and I didn't recognize half the names on there. And I, there was no this big name and there was no this big name and there was no this big name. I'm like, oh, that's because every one of those unknown names that you saw on there are all underwritten by auto in general. They, they own the website, so they promote their own white label brands underneath it. And all of these other insurers that could have better premiums and could have better coverage and could have better service. And not ones that you're hearing about because you think that compare the Market is actually comparing the market. It's not. It's just comparing. Speaker 3 Comparing the auto in general. Speaker 2 Money comparing the auto in general. Speaker 3 Money. It's funny as well. It's. Speaker 1 All that they're allowed to do it to. Speaker 3 Be honest, it is well, it's yeah, someone's got to look at that. I think it's funny as well. The one brand they are building is Budget Direct. It's in the name, right, Budget policy budget claims budget everything right. So that's kind of position they position themselves with where the budget kind of insurer right or when we? Speaker 1 Move with executives and we tell them that they need to do with mall properly. They go look, if we did that on every property, this, it wouldn't be viable. It's like, don't mean to hang on, hang on. So if you did the right thing on every policy, it wouldn't be viable. So it's only viable if you RIP customers off. Yeah, if. Speaker 2 You defraud people? Yeah, basically. Speaker 1 It's, it's wild to me that that's how it it's done. But equally, you know, if that's how you were going to run the claims department, that's how you'd sell the policy, yeah. Speaker 2 You. You don't shy away from the fact that they are a discount policy. You know they have their their advertisement with the guy whose name I can't remember off the top of him yes, you know who's you know this person has saved X amount of dollars and everything. They don't shy away from it. But as you said, we don't seem to see as many UE claims come through and they do have a decent market share. So they have got to be doing something right so you can have a competitive premium and still also provide a service too. Speaker 3 It's funny you brought up Ed Cavalier, because Luke thinks that's his doppelganger. He actually set this whole thing up so someone would bring it up. And there's always like Ed Cavalier. I know who it. Speaker 2 Is I know who it is? What? Speaker 1 Do you mean I just pay? Speaker 2 Terrible, terrible. Yes, please pay Tash to bring it up. No, but the the terrible ads. Sorry Ed, but but they get the point across and it's not a deceptive way of doing it. So they stand behind their brand. Speaker 1 Yeah. Well, good job, UE. All right, we'll maybe UE will win this one as well. I'm not sure. We'll quickly do Most improved Insurer. So we're not doing the least improved, but if there was an award, wonder who'd win that. But we'd say most improved insurer. Alex, who do you reckon? Speaker 3 If I think we've spoken about it a lot, I think Allianz for me is the most improved. I know they've gone through some kind of senior management changes recently and I've seen that start to flow through and their approach, they're very have historically been heavily reliant on loss adjusters. And then therefore their performance is kind of linked with those loss adjusters. Definitely noticing more so recently that they're trying to find the right loss adjusters, challenge their loss adjusters a little bit more around their decision making and try and take back a little bit of that accountability around that decision making and starting to see that flow through. So for me it's Allianz. Speaker 2 Most improves I'll actually call out too. So I will agree with Allianz. I do think that their processes have improved and I do think that when you present them with an argument and supporting evidence that they are better receiving that than some of the others. So I think that that and this is obviously post our engagement, our relationship with Allianz has become quite strong. So I do think that they they're up there. The other one for me is also Hollard, while they don't always get it right as well, but I do think that their processes to to the degree have improved and they work quite well with us as well. So they're my 2. Speaker 1 Right, most improved from your perspective. Speaker 4 I'd agree with Allianz in the sense of when we have become involved, I think just for the reasons that we've sort of discussed already that they are looking at the broader picture. They're taking into account additional evidence, arguments, vulnerability pieces. They are actually considering that and proactively wanting to to help even when the claim is ongoing. So I would say then, but also NRMA, I would say they have sort of shown a bit more awareness for, you know, further damage such as like mold and, and they're actually sort of switched on to that and open to, you know, investigating it and settling properly as opposed to just sort of ignoring it as looking like an additional part of the claim that you're scraping for. I think we've sort of realized that all these extra components are legit concerns and they're addressing them. So yeah, they'd be my top 2. Speaker 1 Well, I'm probably pretty similar to be fair. I think Hollard particularly so they had CBA insurance, they bought CBA insurance. And after their 22 floods, CBA insurance was terrible, as in it was just taking like 12 months to even get a response from them. Like it was horrendous for these customers. That eventually settled them and it was good. But I think Hollard has been on a real journey, so to speak, of improving their claims handling. And it shows in how they're approaching these claims inquiries we're getting, how they respond to us, how they acknowledge where there's issues. Again, they're always coming from it from a pretty transparent and fairway. And I think that's the point from us. We don't expect insurers to just pay everything that we asked for, but we do expect that they just act fairly in reviewing what we're putting forward or how they're going about assessing properties. So for me I would say whole odd and I would probably call that RACQ. More recently, I think the IAG influence on RACQ has been good. Who won? All right, overall winner, who do you reckon most improved I'm? Speaker 3 Going to guess that it is based on this table. Now I'm going to guess Hollard I'm. Speaker 4 Going to say Allianz. Speaker 2 I'm going to say Allianz as well. Speaker 1 Well you 2 would be correct with Allianz. Second was Hollard, so they're pretty close there. All right, the last two awards we've got to the overall best and worst, I think to speed this up, overall worst insurer, unless anyone disagrees. I mean, the whole team was unanimous in this. Speaker 3 Auto in general. I was going to buy surprise. Speaker 2 I was going to throw in a cheeky, you know, could it be Suncorp? No, no, it's definitely in general. Speaker 1 I, I don't know if there's anything more to say about this insurer except to say that I think more will come out about this insurer in due course and I think that the practices will be exposed. It takes time. I think regulators are looking at it right now and I think that we're doing everything we can to focus on it just so that consumers are actually making informed decisions and they're not being tricked into buying this insurance or they're thinking that it's just based on price. Because we know that they discount heavily in the first year. But for the same reason they can do that and the same reason they can pay Qantas insurance to get that product is because they're not probably doing the right thing when it comes to claims handling. So we need to make it fairer and then I think their pricing will probably more likely the other. Speaker 4 I think that's the sort of awareness piece almost that you want to push forward. You know, I think it's a misconception of all insurers are the same. So we'll just go for the cheapest 1. And I get that, you know, when you're looking around for your new insurance policy, you think I'm actually not going to ever need to make a claim. So we'll just go for the cheapest 1. Not a problem because they're all going to screw me over one way or another. When in actual fact, that's not necessarily the case. So I think definitely looking at sort of who's underwriting different brands, what you're, who you're actually insuring with and considering all these things that we've discussed today of making that informed decision and because you might actually need to make a claim. So it's definitely going to be worthwhile maybe trying to do that slightly higher premium potentially. And what's your biggest? Speaker 2 Asset. Our homes are generally our biggest assets. So making sure you have the right level of coverage. Yes, cost of living sucks. We all know it. Premiums are horrific. But the worst thing that can happen, as you said before, is in the event of a claim, you find out you're not covered the way that you thought you were. Or you go through this horrific claims experience and get brutalized by the insurer. As much as it hurts to say, pay that little bit extra and you premium to go for a better quality insurer with better quality reviews and a better quality product. Speaker 1 100% And I think that's what upsets me is that when the policies are cancelled, which and this happens in car insurance a lot with Budget Direct as well, which is why I might look at the independent review sites because on average they're all about one star. Don't look at it on their website. They promote A4 point something star ratings that I don't even know how that's calculated, but they've found another way to trick consumers into thinking that the independent ones are always consistently very low for this insurer. But it's the fact that like they're selling a policy, they're happy to take the premium, but when a claim happens, they don't want to show up at that point and when they cancel the policy in those scenarios. It means that that customer doesn't have any cover and they could have had cover at another time. And if you look at the way when you take out a policy with Suncorp, they know a fair bit of information about your home. So when you put it in, they'll actually pre populate some of the fields. Order in general won't do that because if you are going through when you're saying, oh, I don't have an asbestos roof because you generally don't know you have an asbestos roof. You know, those are all the little traps that are set through those processes or good condition they put in their application. We define good condition as no, you know, damage at all. But normal consumers just read good condition go yeah, my home is in good good condition. Yeah, the other insurers go well maintained and mortar tight. I mean that's a far lower threshold than any damage rust that order in general said. So it's like consumers then taking out a policy it's not suitable for them and then when claims time comes around, they can find themselves in some really horrendous situations or being forced to spend unnecessary money on things that don't need. Just because you have a little bit of rust doesn't mean your whole roof needs to be replaced. But you know, this is an insurer that when it comes to that point, if you then start pushing back on them, they can get pretty nasty in that process. All right, on to positive news. The overall insurer of the year for the 2026 Claims Hero Hero Award. Who do we think? Speaker 3 I think it based on the conversation today and obviously I haven't seen the votes, I'm guessing it's between IIG and Suncorp. I'm going to go Suncorp. Speaker 1 Suncorp for you. I'm going. Speaker 2 To vote Suncorp as well. Speaker 1 Right. Speaker 4 Yeah, I'm going to go Suncorp. Speaker 1 It was not unanimous, OK, but it was pretty much unanimous, 95% of the vote and the winner is Suncorp. Well done, Suncorp. And just to be clear to everyone, when we say Suncorp, that also brands like Amy Gio, Terry Sheer, there's a number of brands within the AAI Limited bucket. But look across the board, I think they are the best at the moment in terms of how they're approaching things and how they look at customers. I get frustrated with them because the way they advertise makes it seem like all products are the same. I'm like, tell customers why you're better, why at claims time you turn up and how are you different from budget direct? Because if you just go and it's like they've always done this, even when I work there, it's just like this wishy washy like statements that they make. And it's like, well, you, you're encouraging consumers to believe that all insurance products are the same and that you, and why not then if Budget Direct is 30% cheaper, where the reality is there's a lot of things that they can point to as to why when claims happen and when you need them, they'll turn up and support you. Speaker 2 They do need to sell themselves a lot better than they currently are, that's for sure. Because they they are a big company, they have a lot of resources, they are on the ground when events happen and I think they they really need to pull out what their their policy coverage is and let people know how they should be being covered. Speaker 1 Exactly right. All right. Final thoughts on all of this? Speaker 4 Rach, mine would just be when you are renewing your policy, take a step back, look at everything as a whole, make sure you know exactly who you're insuring with. And yeah, don't just look at the the premium figure. Speaker 3 Who won best claims advocate? Speaker 1 There was only one in there and we got a unanimous 501, yeah. Speaker 3 No, I agree with Rach. I think it's really important to consider who your insurer is, not just believe what you might see in those ads. We're obviously not providing financial advice around who to select because we're looking at a very small segment of the claims that we manage, plus the inquiries that we get and what we see online. It's important to speak to someone who understands your situation to get that proper advice. But when there is such consistent themes that we see our inquiries see and the you know what you see online social media and stuff like that around certain insurers, I think I would be concerned about that. And also similarly around those ones that do the right thing. And I would take that on board when considering who to insure with and Tash. Speaker 2 I agree completely. You know, don't just take the the advertising word for it because money talks, as I said before. But additionally, if you are in a circumstance with a claim or during your policy or whatever, stand up and speak for yourself. Like call out the bad behaviors, say to the insurers, this isn't right. Don't let them close off the complaint because they've said they'll get another assessment. Wait until that assessment is being done. Don't get bullied. Speak out because the rest of the country and the other providers need to actually hear this information from consumers so something can be done. Speaker 1 Absolutely. I I agree with all of those points. And for auto in general, we know you love an award, so congratulations, you've got a clean sweep of the 2026 Villain awards there. So across the board you are the worst performer. I somehow do not believe that will show up on your billboards. But if you continue the way you are, I'm sure for the next 10 years you will continue to win these awards. But let's hope for the sake of the millions of Australians that are currently insured with that provider that they change their ways or regulators step in to change it because the path of consumer harm is very long there and growing. And for me, I genuinely want to see change because I think that consumers are being harmed. And I also think for these better insurers that are doing the right thing, they're not being rewarded for it because this behavior is allowed to continue in that process. And to those that one good job, keep up the good work. See, claims here is not just about bashing everyone and saying that the industry is doing the wrong thing. I think that there are some real green shoots and there are some insurers that really do do the right thing. So I think it's good for us to call that out. They do care. They don't always get it right, but I think that that's the point for all these insurers is that those opportunities where things have gone wrong is your opportunity to show your customer how much you care about them. Speaker 2 And saying sorry is important. Speaker 1 Good way to end. Thanks, Tim. Speaker 3 Cheers.