Link Insurance Brokers | Finance

Link Insurance Brokers

Phone: 1300 131 343

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Businesses
• Finance
• Insurance broker
• Insurance company

20.01.2022 The Steadfast billboard on the Ipswich Motorway

07.01.2022 The cost of Terrorism As a result of the Lindt café hostage siege in Sydney that ended in tragic circumstances, the Federal Government... has now determined the actions of the gunman was a terrorist act. This declaration was a key point for the insurance industry as the Terrorism Insurance Scheme that was created following the Terrorism Act 2003 can now fund claim settlements. The scheme is administered by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation and provides a pool of money to minimise the impacts that flowed from the withdrawal of terrorism insurance. This standard exclusion introduced to policies was necessitated by the anticipated huge costs, estimated at $20 billion, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on New York’s Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The Terrorism Insurance Scheme provides cover for commercial property and associated business interruption and public liability claims. It does not cover residential property or residential property contents; also excluded are myriad other types of insurance too extensive to list here. The scheme is funded by a percentage of premium contributions paid into the reinsurance pool to ensure there are adequate funds to pay for large scale loss that may affect property and subsequent loss of income. The scheme was established as an interim measure and is formally reviewed every three years in order to decide if there is a need to continue. The latest review in 2012 decided that in the context of levels of Australian and International terrorism at the time, the scheme would continue.

06.01.2022 Run off cover When moving on after completing a project, you’ll probably have more on your mind than insurance. But without run-off cover, you might find yourself unprepared and unprotected. So what’s the standard timeframe to hold run-off cover following a project? This is actually a trick question; there is no standard timeframe. Generally the required period of run-off cover is specified in the contract. Six or seven years is standard, as after this, the statute of lim...Continue reading

03.01.2022 We’ve Been Hacked! What Do We Do? By Patrick Boardman, Partner and Jack Geng, Associate 5 March 2015... Since the start of 2015 there have been 2 serious hacking attacks in the US and Australia. It is currently understood that up to 80 million records held by the US health insurer, Anthem and up to 770,000 records held by Australian travel insurer, Aussie Travel Cover were compromised in the attacks. If these hacking attacks are an early indication of the things to come, 2015 could be a very bad year for mass data breaches around the world and in Australia. Deloitte has recently estimated that the average data breach cost per event in Australia for 2014 is approximately $2.6 million. Given the very real risks faced by Australian businesses, their directors and offices need to understand how to respond to an attack. In August 2014, the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published a ‘Data breach notification guide’ entitled A guide to handling personal information security breaches. This is a most useful guide to how a company should respond to a security breach. While the publication is only a guide, and thus not legally binding, it will be used as a benchmark against which a company’s response will be measured. The law has long established that the greater the risk, the greater the duty of care to prevent or protect against that risk. Given the increasing prevalence of cyber attacks and the consequences of such attacks, there must also be an increased risk of a finding that there is a duty to utilise best endeavours to prevent such attacks and minimise the harm to the company and third parties if an attack occurs. It is therefore imperative that in respect of third parties, companies seek to adopt as a minimum, the OAIC guidelines. A failure to do so could further expose the company and its directors to even greater loss beyond the immediate consequences of the cyber attack.