Header background of newspaper

Newsletters

Stay current and updated
with our rich newsletters
and articles

THE INSURANCE GAP AND NO REFUND POLICY IN NIGERIA

newsletter/article cover image

THE INSURANCE GAP AND NO REFUND POLICY IN NIGERIA
I. INTRODUCTION
Nigeria’s small business sector, particularly the micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), plays a critical role in driving the economy. However, in recent years, an increasing number of small businesses have adopted a strict "no refund" policy, leaving customers with little recourse in cases of dissatisfaction. This trend can largely be attributed to the lack of adequate insurance coverage, which leaves businesses financially exposed. Despite efforts to improve insurance penetration, it remains critically low in Nigeria. As a result, MSMEs are often forced to self-insure, adopting no refund policies to safeguard against potential losses. This article explores the connection between no refund policies and the insurance gap in Nigeria, while examining the potential downside of insurance fraud that plagues various sectors.

II. WHAT IS INSURANCE
Insurance is essentially a financial safety net that helps protect against life's uncertainties and risks. It works through a contract between the policyholder, which could be an individual or business, and an insurance company. In this agreement, the insurer, or underwriter, agrees to take on the risk of loss if a specific event or eventuality happens, like an accident, illness, or property damage. In exchange, the policyholder pays regular premiums.

The idea behind insurance is to manage risk—whether it’s related to your health, life, property, or business—by transferring the financial burden to the insurer. By pooling premiums from multiple policyholders, insurance companies are able to distribute and spread that risk, so no single person or business faces the full impact of a financial loss. This way, insurance provides peace of mind and helps maintain stability when unexpected events occur.

III. THE STATE OF INSURANCE IN NIGERIA
Nigeria’s insurance sector is significantly underdeveloped, contributing less than 1% to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Insurance penetration, defined as the ratio of total insurance premiums to GDP, is a mere 0.5%. For comparison, South Africa's stands at 12.89% and Kenya’s at 2.93%. This low penetration rate highlights the severe gap in coverage, despite Nigeria's sizable population and growing entrepreneurial spirit.

Regulatory Challenges: The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) is tasked with regulating the insurance industry, but progress has been slow due to inconsistent policy enforcement, inefficiencies, and bureaucratic delays. These issues undermine both investor confidence and consumer trust.

Infrastructure Deficiencies: Insurers face challenges with outdated infrastructure, which limits their ability to efficiently provide services. Digital platforms that could broaden access, especially in rural areas, are underutilized, further hindering the sector’s growth.

Awareness and Cultural Barriers: Low awareness among Nigerians regarding the benefits of insurance is one of the most significant challenges. Many MSME owners, particularly in rural areas, see insurance as an unnecessary expense or even view it as suspicious, further widening the gap in coverage.

IV. NO REFUND POLICIES IN NIGERIA: LEGAL CONTEXT AND ENTREPRENEURIAL RATIONALE
No refund policies have become prevalent in Nigeria, especially among small and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs) in the retail and online sectors. Many business owners, driven by financial insecurity and the absence of insurance, enforce strict no refund policies to safeguard their operations from financial losses. It's estimated that around 65% of MSMEs follow this practice, which has seen significant growth in the past five years.

However, it's important to recognize that these no refund policies are illegal under Nigerian law. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) of 2018 explicitly prohibits such blanket policies. Section 122 of the Act is instructive in this regard and is reproduced below for ease of reference:

“In addition to the consumer's right to return unsafe or defective goods under any law or enactment, the consumer may return goods to the supplier and receive a full refund of any consideration paid for those goods, if the supplier has delivered:
a. goods intended to satisfy a particular purpose communicated to the supplier and within a reasonable time after delivery to the consumer, the goods have been found to be unsuitable for that particular purpose; or
b. goods that the consumer did not have an opportunity to examine before delivery, and the consumer has rejected delivery of the goods within a reasonable time after delivery to the consumer for the reason that the goods do not correspond with description, sample or that they are not of the type and quality reasonably contemplated in the sales agreement.

This section guarantees consumer rights, including the right to return goods or demand refunds in cases of defective or unsatisfactory products.

Despite this legal prohibition, the widespread adoption of no refund policies across various sectors suggests a near-normative acceptance. Many business owners are unaware or dismissive of the legal implications, focusing instead on their immediate need to mitigate risks in an unpredictable business environment. Financial constraints, lack of insurance coverage, and the slim margins under which many MSMEs operate contribute to their preference for these policies, viewing them as necessary financial protection. The insecurity in business transactions and the desire to avoid potential losses from refunds drive these entrepreneurs to act in ways that, though illegal, seem practical to them.

From a consumer perspective, rigid no refund policies often result in frustration, leading to erosion of trust and long-term damage to the business-customer relationship. Customers feel alienated, and this can eventually harm the business reputation, leading to loss of loyalty and potential revenue in the long run.

While this paper does not examine the propriety or otherwise of these illegal policies, it seeks to explore the mindset of the entrepreneurs who enforce them. Understanding their rationale sheds light on the significant gap between the letter of the law and the lived realities of small business owners in Nigeria.

V. THE INSURANCE GAP: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES
The lack of affordable and accessible insurance products leaves Nigerian MSMEs exposed to substantial financial risks.

Analysis of Sector Shortcomings: Current insurance offerings are often too costly or complex for MSMEs to adopt. Moreover, the lack of micro-insurance products specifically tailored for small businesses exacerbates the gap. The absence of efficient distribution channels further limits access, particularly for businesses in rural areas.

Impact on Small Businesses: Without insurance, small businesses are vulnerable to both foreseeable and unforeseen financial risks. These range from fire, theft, and legal liabilities to issues such as product returns, refunds, and goods lost in transit. For example, without transit insurance, a business must bear the full cost of goods damaged en route to customers. Additionally, business deals can occasionally go awry, leading to financial losses from disputes or failed contracts. In such cases, no insurance coverage means these costs directly impact the business’s bottom line, sometimes resulting in closure.

Furthermore, the absence of risk mitigation tools discourages expansion. MSMEs operating under constant financial pressure are often hesitant to grow, fearing that any increase in operations may expose them to greater losses. Consequently, the insurance gap hampers not only the stability but also the growth potential of small businesses in Nigeria.

VI. INSURANCE FRAUD
Insurance fraud is a prevalent issue across various sectors in Nigeria, including the small business and MSME landscape. While insurance is designed to protect businesses from losses, the potential for fraud presents a serious downside.

Types of Fraud in Small Online Businesses:
1. Fake Claims: Some businesses may submit fraudulent claims for compensation, asserting damages or losses that never occurred.
2. Overstated Losses: In some instances, businesses exaggerate the extent of damages or losses to receive higher payouts.
3. Phantom Assets: This involves insuring non-existent or undervalued assets to inflate claims.
4. Collusion: In cases of fraud, business owners may conspire with insurance agents or adjusters to submit false claims, sharing the ill-gotten payouts.

Nigerian Context
A notorious example of insurance fraud in Nigeria is the arson of insured farmland, where some farmers set their crops ablaze to claim insurance payouts. Similarly, small online businesses could stage events like the loss of goods in transit or overstate the value of damaged products. In some cases, staged thefts or deliberate product damage are used to defraud insurance companies. This practice not only harms insurers but also drives up premiums, making insurance less affordable and accessible to honest business owners.

Consequences
The prevalence of insurance fraud erodes trust in the industry and raises premiums for all policyholders. As insurers become more cautious, they may restrict coverage or increase premiums, making it even harder for small businesses to access affordable insurance. Furthermore, widespread fraud undermines the credibility of the insurance sector and can lead to financial losses for both the government and private insurers.

Prevention Measures
To combat insurance fraud, regulators and insurers must implement stronger due diligence processes, including regular audits and the use of advanced data analytics to detect fraudulent patterns. Educating business owners about the consequences of fraud and enhancing transparency in the claims process are also critical steps to curb this issue.

VII. BRIDGING THE INSURANCE GAP: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Addressing the insurance gap in Nigeria’s MSME sector requires innovation, regulatory reform,

Click to read the full article