Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission in collaboration
with the Princes Town Regional Corporation and Financial Sector Stakeholders invite the Public to its
5th Investor Education ‘Community Roadshow’
In case you missed the NFLP’s second instalment of its Money Conversations Series, held on, Tuesday, April 21, 2026.
“Understanding Cyber Threats and Financial Fraud to Stay One Step Ahead”
The expert panel featured:
Ms. Keisha Lashley, Assistant Manager, Information & Cybersecurity,
Ms. Lystra Lucillio, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission and
Mr. Brent Keshwah, Information Cybersecurity Governance Manager representing BATT,
moderated by Mrs. Christine Nanton-Winter, Manager, External Relations, Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.
View the recording via YouTube at:
Money Conversations – Understanding Cyber Threats and Financial Fraud – YouTube
The insured purchased a life insurance policy in 1976 from an insurance company. He made arrangements with his bank to pay his premiums by means of a standing order. The insured went away from Trinidad and Tobago for an extended period.
In 2000, the insured became aware of an outstanding loan of approximately $20,000.00 against his policy. He claimed to have made attempts between 2001 and 2005 to get information from the insurance company about the loan but was unsuccessful.
In 2006, he was advised that an Automatic Premium Loan (APL) had been applied against his policy for the months in which the company had not received payments of premium, in accordance with the terms of the policy contract.
The insurance company also indicated that he was advised of the APL from as early as 1998, via correspondence mailed to the same address which had not changed from inception, starting with a loan balance of approximately $6,300.00. The complainant claimed that he did not receive any such letter and asked only to pay the loan balance as at 1998.
This request was denied by the insurance company on the basis that the insured had not reported any change of address at any time during his relationship with the insurance company. In fact, his address remained the same to date. Having sent the correspondence to his usual mailing address, they felt that they had satisfied their obligation. Additionally, they had no record of any attempt being made to query the outstanding accumulated loan amount, which increased as further premium loans and compound interest were added over time.
LESSONS LEARNT
Consumers need to monitor the payments made against their policies very closely as Automatic Premium loans are a feature of most life insurance policies.
In instances where a premium is not received by the insurance company, the outstanding premium will be treated automatically as a loan as long as there is sufficient cash value attached to the policy. This is to avoid the policy going into a lapsed state. Interest will be added to the loan on a compound basis and, over time, the loan balance could erode altogether the cash surrender value of the policy.
The complainant was insured with Company A when her vehicle was involved in an accident in April 2006. She was forced to take evasive action to avoid colliding with another car and in so doing, her car sustained considerable damage when it ran off the road. No other vehicle was damaged in the accident.
She subsequently submitted a claim to her insurers, under her Comprehensive policy, seeking recovery of the damages to her car. However, the complainant was unable to get any word from her insurers as to the status of her complaint and after repeated delays she lodged a complaint at the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman (OFSO).
The OFSO presented the complainant’s case to the Company which appointed an investigator to review the circumstances surrounding the accident and at the same time, assess the damages sustained by the vehicle. When the report was submitted, an offer of settlement was made to the complainant based on the investigator’s report less the applicable excess under her policy. The complainant accepted the offer. However, she was unable to recover the excess.
LESSONS LEARNT
Although she was not the negligent party in the accident, the complainant was unable to recover her excess as there was no accident to report by another party.
Her insurers were therefore unable to recover any monies paid out to her under her comprehensive cover. Both the complainant and her insurance company were out of pocket by the excess amount and the settlement amount respectively. And, unfortunately, she would have to suffer the reversal of any no claim bonus she would have earned.
The complainant was in possession of a flexible premium annuity, Annuity A, from an insurance company. She received a call from her financial advisor indicating that the current rate of interest on that product was declining. After some discussion, they decided that the proceeds from Annuity A would be reinvested ‘in another fund’ in order to maximise the returns. The relevant application forms were then completed and submitted to the company for approval.
Some time after, the complainant received a phone call from the Board of Inland Revenue querying the registration of a new annuity, Annuity B. The complainant was naturally surprised since she was already in possession of an annuity and did not want another. She then visited the insurance company and discovered that Annuity A had been surrendered and the proceeds less the surrender charges were transferred to Annuity B. at that point. The complainant then requested that the insurance company waive the surrender charges on Annuity A and refund her the monies accumulated. She stated further that her servicing agent obtained the second annuity from her ‘under false pretenses’ and, given her financial situation at the time, he should be aware that she should not have taken out a second annuity.
After some investigation, the insurance company declined to waive the surrender charges on the annuity on the grounds that the complainant submitted an application form for the product and she was bound to the terms and conditions therein. Further, the agent stated that he notified the complainant of the type of plan being purchased and that it was designed to provide income upon retirement. The registration of the policy therefore followed and as this was a legal requirement the company would be unable to accede to the complainant’s request to have the plan registered.
LESSONS FROM THE CASE
Consumers should take an active role in their financial affairs. While the call from the agent about the declining interest rates may have been the trigger alerting the consumer about the status of her investment, the onus is on the consumer to get all relevant information before purchasing financial products. Many insurance companies have service centers and customer call centers designed to answer queries from existing and potential clients. Having signed the application form (whether she read it or not), the complainant indicated her agreement with all attached terms and conditions.
Mr. G’s car was being driven in the Port of Spain area by a friend and was involved in a four-car collision at an intersection controlled by traffic signals. He filed a claim with the insurer of the vehicle which he believed was responsible for the accident.
He was advised by the company that it was unable to pay his claim, since its investigations revealed that the insurance certificate for the car driven by the allegedly negligent driver was obtained through fraudulent means. To all intents and purposes, therefore, there was no insurance cover at the time of the accident.
Mr. G was not prepared to accept the explanation given by the company and visited the Office of the Financial Ombudsman (OFSO) to lodge a complaint.
Upon review of all the information presented by the insurance company, the OFSO was of the view that the company was within its rights to deny liability for payment of claim and advised him accordingly. The complainant presented no further evidence to support his case against the insurer. The complaint was deemed to be without merit and was withdrawn.
The complainant’s home was covered under a homeowner’s protection policy when her house was damaged by an earthquake. She stated that she noticed cracks and breakage in the walls close to the roof of her patio and immediately made a report to her insurers. She was directed by them, to someone else, later identified as a loss adjuster who worked for the company, to have the damages reviewed.
Some time after the adjuster visited the premises, the damaged portion of the roof collapsed, causing the complainant to again contact the adjuster who then advised her to proceed with the necessary demolition work. He further advised her to submit an estimate for her costs to demolish and rebuild her patio. The complainant proceeded to repair her home, at her own expense and await reimbursement from her insurers. To her surprise, her claim was denied on the grounds of ‘construction inadequacies tantamount to poor workmanship’.
The insurance company, supported by the report produced by its loss adjuster denied the complainant’s claim on the basis that the damage was due to poor workmanship and this was strictly excluded under the policy. In his report, the adjuster also stated that the porch was added subsequent to the initial construction of the building and perhaps improper fastening of the porch roof, coupled with inadequate support columns were jointly responsible for the collapse.
However, after the intervention of the Ombudsman’s office and considering the long relationship with the customer, the company offered an ex-gratia payment. This recommendation was then reviewed by an independent investigator appointed by the Ombudsman office who concurred that the calculation of the settlement was accurate and that the complainant should be advised to accept same. The complainant however, declined to accept same and the OFSO closed its files on the matter.
LESSONS LEARNT
The investigator appointed by the Ombudsman’s office found that the ex-gratia payment offered by the company was fair and worthy of consideration by the complainant. In his evaluation of the claim, the OFSO’s investigator considered both earthquakes mentioned by the complainant as separate events and his estimated settlement was not far from that offered by the company. The investigator also indicated that any additions to the main building should have been brought to the attention of the insurer to have same covered by way of an endorsement on the policy. The complainant did not accept the calculation provided by our investigator, insisting that the damage resulted from one earthquake.
On the second day of the New Year, Karen was driving in her Honda Accord motor vehicle when, according to her, a motor vehicle driven by John collided with her vehicle. John accepted liability at the time of the accident and agreed to pay for the repairs to her motor vehicle. Karen was dissatisfied with the repairs claiming that the foreign used parts used to repair her vehicle changed its appearance externally and its functioning internally. Karen also wanted payment of $5,000.00 for loss of earnings as a result of the accident.
It was at this point that Karen visited the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman (OFSO) for assistance. Karen requested that this Office communicate with John’s insurance company to recover expenses related to repairing the motor vehicle and loss of earnings. The OFSO sent communication to the insurance company as indicated by Karen. However, upon investigation, it was discovered that John was not insured by that insurance company and as such it had no record of the accident. The company also attempted to contact Karen numerous times but was unsuccessful.
When contacted by the OFSO with the insurance company’s response, Karen indicated that she was mistaken and that John was in fact insured by her own insurance company. Karen confirmed that her motor vehicle was finally repaired but her claim for loss of earnings was not as yet settled. Given that there was no further indication from Karen that she wished to continue the matter with her insurance company, the file was closed.
Lessons Learnt:
- Report your accident to the police- it is the law! According to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, Chap 48:50 (M.V.R.T.A.) Sect 79 (1):
If involved in an accident which causes damage or injury to person, vehicles or property or any animal not in your vehicle, you must stop, take the injured to the nearest doctor or hospital, give your name and address to interested persons and report the accident to the nearest Police Station or to a constable in uniform immediately. - It is always advisable to report the accident to your insurance company and to the other party’s insurance company even if the person admits liability at the time of the accident.
- To expedite the claims process, ensure that correct information is relayed to the insurance company and the OFSO.
The complainant completed an application for enhanced benefits under an Accident and Sickness Disability Policy in August 2003 which his insurance company accepted with effect from September 1st, 2003. In January 2004 he submitted a claim for payment of Disability Income Benefit and an accompanying claim for waiver of premium because of his inability to work.
The insurance company denied his claim for payment of Disability Income on the grounds that the insured did not honestly disclose pertinent information at the time of his application, which would have impacted significantly on the Underwriter’s decision.
The Application Form completed by the insured, included a question which asked “Do any of the Proposed Persons intend to seek medical advice, treatment, or have medical tests done?” The applicant responded, “No” despite the fact that his doctor had told him ten days prior, that he would be required to have some tests done which subsequently proved to be positive.
He sought the advice of the Financial Services Ombudsman who subsequently concurred with the insurance company and advised the complainant accordingly.
The second request by the insured for waiver of premiums due to his disability was granted.
LESSONS LEARNT
A prospective insured has a duty to disclose honestly all material facts bearing on the risk to be borne by the insurer. Information withheld or not honestly disclosed can lead to a cancellation of the policy.