In a statement, Zurich-owned insurance group OnePath said it had refined its new business and customer management process by connecting the technology systems powering its OneCare products, meaning advisers could now expect easier processing of client applications.
Under the new system advisers would be able to pre-assess, quote and apply for insurance online from one central access point while also having access to their clients’ portfolios.
OnePath head of propositions and group life Gerard Kerr said the improvements lined up with demand from advisers to partner with insurers that were easy to do business with and allowed them to improve efficiency.
“Over the past few years, OnePath has invested in developing market-leading and award-winning technology to simplify insurance and save advisers and their clients time,” Mr Kerr said.
“Linking these technologies is the next step in OnePath’s work to deliver advisers and customers a more valuable customer experience.”
Mr Kerr said the group hoped the new system would be more intuitive for advisers from end to end.
“By connecting these capabilities, OnePath is providing advisers and their customers with an insurance solution that is in not only in sync but is speaking the same language and working for them from start to finish,” he said.
When will OnePath fix its antiquated commission statement technology?
OnePath insists on sending them as encrypted files, using encryption software from the 1990s. To open them you have to purchase and install that specific software. Because it’s so old, it has incompatibilities with a lot of modern stuff, and buggers your computer for other things.
OnePath says “we have to do it that way for compliance”. But no-one else does it that way. Just another example of big companies using “compliance” as a bureaucratic excuse for “incompetence”.
just charge fee for service on insurance and stop being conflicted in your advice….
What an uneducated simpleton comment that is!
I do charge fees for insurance advice, but it’s BID and FASEA that stop me from being conflicted, not the advice payment method.
I also receive commissions from those insurers where I do the application lodgement and underwriting facilitation for them. Since that work is essentially outsourced admin I do for the insurer, it is appropriate the insurer pays me directly for it. Alternatively the client can go direct to the insurer and pay the same premium. The insurer still has to cover all the admin costs inhouse, so it’s no cheaper for the client. It’s why union fund and online products are rarely cheaper for the same standard of cover, in spite of having “no commissions”.