Insurers Clash Over Anti-Squatter Insurance in Spain

Clash between insurers as Mapfre attacks Direct Line’s anti-occupation insurance initiative

In a surprising turn of events, Mapfre, the second-largest insurance company in Spain, has publicly criticized and dismissed the anti-occupation insurance initiative launched by its competitor, Direct Line. Mapfre argues that there is not enough demand from customers to make this segment of the business viable and that it does not address a real need.

During a financial conference organized by the APIE and the UIMP in Santander, sponsored by BBVA, Mapfre’s President, Anthony Huertas, bluntly stated, “We have to be serious, we have to offer products that meet the needs of the people.” This statement was seen as a direct attack on Línea Directa, with its CEO, Patricia Ayuela, present in the front row.

However, Direct Line defended its initiative by highlighting the alarming number of complaints for illegal occupation in Spain, which exceeds 16,000, coinciding with the nearly 17,000 fires that occur in homes. Ayuela argued that just like fire insurance, occupation insurance is necessary and should not be disregarded.

The clash between the two insurers escalated further when Huertas shared an anecdote to emphasize his opposition to anti-squatter insurance. He recalled a car insurance policy from the 1980s that sent insured individuals to jail if they committed a traffic safety crime. This anecdote was seen as a way to disdain Direct Line’s initiative.

Ayuela responded to Huertas’ attack by stating, “It’s important to listen to customers and detect their needs.” However, Huertas had already left the room, leaving the CEO of Direct Line to emphasize the huge acceptance they have received from customers.

Mapfre sources argue that the potential interest from clients for anti-occupation insurance is minimal, leading the company to rule out joining this business. Instead, Mapfre focuses on a policy against non-payment of rent, guaranteeing the rent for the insured. They justify their stance by stating, “There is a problem, but what you have to do is prevent the houses from being occupied.”

Last week, as part of its home insurance offerings, Línea Directa introduced coverage against illegal occupation of homes. This coverage includes legal assistance for eviction and covers up to 33,900 euros for damage to the house. The insurance is available for a cost of 10 euros per year.

The clash between Mapfre and Direct Line highlights the differing opinions within the insurance industry regarding the necessity and viability of anti-occupation insurance. While Direct Line believes it addresses a real need, Mapfre argues that prevention should be the focus. Only time will tell which approach proves to be more successful in meeting the demands of customers.

How does Direct Line’s anti-occupation insurance policy address the concerns of homeowners facing illegal occupation in Spain?

Gal occupation of properties in Spain. The company asserts that its anti-occupation insurance policy provides much-needed protection and peace of mind for homeowners.

Direct Line’s CEO, Patricia Ayuela, expressed disappointment at Mapfre’s comments, stating, “We strongly believe that our anti-occupation insurance initiative is essential in addressing the concerns of homeowners who have been victims of illegal occupation.” Ayuela further emphasized that the initiative was developed in response to a growing demand from customers seeking protection against this issue.

The clash between the insurers highlights the diverging strategies within the Spanish insurance market. Mapfre, traditionally focused on offering more traditional insurance products, questions the viability and profitability of this specific policy. In contrast, Direct Line sees an opportunity to meet an emerging need and tap into a previously underserved market.

Illegal occupation of properties has become a significant problem in Spain, prompting both public outcry and political attention. Homeowners face significant challenges when dealing with squatters, such as long and expensive legal battles to reclaim their properties. Direct Line’s anti-occupation insurance policy aims to alleviate these burdens by covering legal fees and eviction costs, providing homeowners with financial support during what can be a stressful and draining process.

The disagreement between Mapfre and Direct Line also sheds light on the varying perspectives within the insurance industry on the role of insurers in addressing social issues. While Mapfre questions the necessity of addressing illegal occupation through insurance, Direct Line takes a more proactive approach, recognizing the potential positive impact it can have on affected homeowners.

As the clash between the insurers continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the market will respond to Direct Line’s anti-occupation insurance initiative. The outcome of this dispute may have broader implications for the Spanish insurance industry, as it grapples with evolving consumer needs and demands.