Our General Insurance OmbudService experience
Disclaimer: What you read here are my recollections and opinions of events that I experienced with Allstate and the GIO - and should not be considered statements of fact.
Our experience with Allstate was more than frustrating; it was profoundly disillusioning. My mother, a visually impaired senior, should have been treated with fairness and respect. Instead, she was reduced to a policy number, a statistic, a victim of opaque algorithms and corporate stonewalling — an experience emblematic of a broader, systemic issue in the insurance industry.
Passing the buck
In Allstate's final position letter, the Allstate Ombudsman advised:
"Should you remain unsatisfied with our final position, please note that you may contact the Insurance OmbudService (GIO), an independent dispute resolution mechanism. You can access the service by contacting the Consumer Information Centre at 1-877-225-0446 or visit their website at www.giocanada.org."
Feeling like victims of indifference at Allstate, the GIO was our next step.
Our brief fruitless encounter with the GIO
The GIO, promoted by both the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA), appeared to be an customer-focused organization that helps resolve problems, and thus we had some hope to find an solution to our problem with Allstate.
FSRA: How to resolve a Property and Other Insurance complaint
The General Insurance OmbudService (GIO) markets itself as an “independent” organization aimed at resolving disputes fairly. Yet, our brief encounter exposed a stark reality: the GIO is an industry-funded mechanism designed to make complaints go away, not resolve them.
In the evening of November 26, we submitted our complaint via the GIO complaint submission form.
By 8:15 am, November 27, 2024, Valérie Mc Kibbin, Consumer Service Officer, General Insurance OmbudService (GIO), responded with a lengthy and informative email, in which she wrote two things that stood out:
1. “You should learn from the Ombudsman about the basis for the insurer’s actions and obtain substantiation as to the grounds for their actions.”
Allstate did not provide any insight that I would consider “substantiation” for the exorbitant insurance premium.
2. “While GIO cannot act as an advocate, information and options will be provided for your review and consideration.”
I found this confusing because an “ombudsman”, originally, was an impartial citizen advocate.
By 8:30 am, we finalized our complaint by submitting Allstate’s final position letter.
By 9:00 am, Ms Mc Kibbin, informed us that our complaint does not fall within the mandate of the GIO and advised that: “If you are dissatisfied with Allstate's business practice, you can put in a complaint with FSRA.” They passed the buck to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA), a government body that regulates the finance and insurance industries.
I was surprised by the rapid response and disappointed that the GIO would not help us. We encountered just another layer of indifference masquerading as consumer advocacy. I asked multiple times what sort of problems the GIO does help people with, specifically what problems are “in scope” for this “ombudsman” service but Ms Mc Kibbin did not provide an answer. I escalated and asked April Schulze, CEO and Ombudsman, but she forwarded my request to Bruno De Sando, Deputy Ombudsman, who also refused to provide me with insights into what is “in scope”.
The next step: Submitting a complaint with the FSRA.
What is the General Insurance OmbudService?
The GIO promotes itself is an “independent” organization stating: “Our goal is to use our extensive experience and industry-related insight to work towards a fair resolution between individuals and their insurance providers”, but this seems like more puffery.
According to the GIO’s annual report for 2024:
“Contacts to GIO increased significantly this past year. Of the 6,270 initial contacts, 345 moved to our investigative informal conciliation stage and, from there, 22 advanced to our mediation stage. We also advanced 6 files to Senior Adjudication. Overall, our initial contacts increased by 26% this year. “
When the GIO states that: “Contacts to GIO increased significantly this past year”, this can be interpreted to mean that insurance customers experienced a significant increase in problems that their insurance company refused to solve to their satisfaction.
To me, it feels like the GIO is yet another industry charade that does not serve customers but the 149 member companies that provide the funding, which for fiscal year 2024 was $ 2,362,787. Of this, $1,424,341 was spend on salaries and benefits, $171,059 on the Board of Directors. The org put excess revenue of $291,541 into their bank account which now has $2,662,900.
All employees identified on LinkedIn are former employees in the insurance industry — not one with a background in customer advocacy. April Schulze, CEO and Ombudsman worked as an associate at two law firms from 2007-12, then in various ombudsman positions, and joined the GIO in 2018. Bruno De Sando, Deputy Ombudsman, worked in the insurance industry in customer service and claims since 2007, joining the GIO in 2022.
Though I felt abandoned, after reading the GIO annual report for 2024, I realized that I was not alone.
In fiscal year 2024, 25,942 people visited the GIO website and learned that out of 6,270 people that contacted the GIO, desiring a solution to a problem, only 345 files, that is only 5,5% of people that made contact, were escalated to Informal Conciliation, which means that people submitted the final position letter they received their insurer and began the complaint process.
Of these, by my understanding, a meagre 22 files, only 0.35% of people that made contact, were found to be within the GIO’s mandate and escalated to the Mediation phase, and only 6 files were escalated to the Senior Adjudicative phase. This “ombudsman” appears not to help a lot of customers but does solves a lot of headaches for its member companies.
The GIO’s funding structure and staffing further undermine its credibility. With $2.36 million in funding—all from insurance companies—and a leadership team drawn from the industry itself, the GIO is inherently conflicted. Can an organization that depends on funding from the insurance industry act in support of customers’ interests?
Based on the numbers provided in the annual report, the cost to help each of he 22 people that reached the mediation phase was was $107,400! That sounds staggering, but the cost of making problems disappear was about $375 per person that contacted the GIO.
A system designed to frustrate?
To me, it seems that when Allstate provided hope advising us to submit a complaint to the GIO they knew that there would be no help. The GIO’s rapid rejection of our complaint, coupled with their refusal to clarify what issues fall “within scope,” left us questioning whether their purpose is to help consumers at all - it is hard to believe that the GIO would bite the hand that feeds it.
The GIO is not alone in such a charade. The practice of funnelling complaints into such “industry funded ombudsmen” is not limited to insurance. Similar entities, like the respectable sounding Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTS), follows the same playbook: presenting themselves as impartial mediators while serving as industry funded shields for the member companies that pay their bills. These organizations create a façade of consumer protection while maintaining the status quo of corporate impunity.
The “Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services” (CCTS) claims: “The CCTS is an independent organization dedicated to resolving TV and telecom services complaints. If you have not been able to reach a solution directly with your service provider, we may be able to help — and you can expect a fair and impartial complaint resolution service.”
Comments
Post a Comment