Comment from a reader on "SBMA-GSIS Insurance Deal"
Just to set the record straight:
There is nothing preventing the Freeport leaseholder from, in addition to the mandatory GSIS insurance coverage, securing an individual and separate insurance policy with a private insurance company specifying the leaseholder/resident/locator only, as the sole beneficiary.
In many cases, SBMA’s compulsory requirement for the amount of coverage is merely based on a fraction of the insurable value for most properties in the Freeport. These insurable values were set by SBMA more than 10 years ago, based on the mere book value of assets owned by SBMA and have not increased exponentially since the GSIS insurance requirement was enforced by SBMA.
The premiums charged by GSIS are relatively insignificant. It is unreasonable for a leaseholder to expect that a property, valued at say, P5M would be fully covered by GSIS with an annual premium of P3,000.00. I would suggest that common sense would dictate that leaseholders take personal responsibility in appropriately insuring their properties. Whilst GSIS coverage is mandatory for all government owned and controlled company properties through SBMA all locators and residents need to comply with this national regulation nuisance factor .
Many of us have separate all-risk insurance policies, underwritten by private insurance companies over and above the GSIS requirement, covering the true insurable replacement value of the property with the leaseholder as the beneficiary. This way, should there be a claim, it can be hopefully, handled quickly and efficiently completely bypassing GSIS and SBMA should there be a claim.
Nicolas Insurance is neither a locator or accredited contractor in the Freeport and is erroneous in stating that a separate coverage on properties must show SBMA as the beneficiary. This is not the case and has been reverified with SBMA's upper management.
[The Subic Bulletin] Thank you very much for your opinion, but we can't agree with your assessment.
We would bring your attention to the Section IV of the SBMA Policy Guidelines For Housing Insurance Claims, which states: "each Resident/Lessee is mandated to insure ONLY with GSIS based on the general terms and conditions laid out under the SBMA-GSIS MOA". So on your first point that there is nothing preventing the leaseholder from getting additional insurance elsewhere, the SBMA documentation does not support your statement.
Additionally, your statement that "leaseholders take personal responsibility in appropriately insuring their properties" is consistent with what the Nicholas letter is also suggesting, however it seems Nicholas Broker is suggesting that SBMA's policy that properties can be insured ONLY through GSIS with SBMA as beneficiaries means that the additional polices you speak of could be invalidated should a claim arise.
Finally your last statement: "This is not the case and has been reverified with SBMA's upper management." If you have these contacts in SBMA senior management then please help us obtain confirmation of this in writing, because this is the very crux of the issue. If a Leaseholder were free to obtain other policies without contravening any SBMA rules that could invalidate their claim then this issue would be resolved, but unfortunately the current documents provided by SBMA says "ONLY GSIS".
We don't think anyone is fussed by the GSIS "Tax" but we do want to ensure our "real" policies are valid in case of a claim. Nicholas Brokers tell us that an insurance company could weasel out because of SBMA's policy, we appreciate if you can clarify this issue further in writing with your senior SBMA management contacts.
