Money Back Insurance Offer

[Rincewind]

Despite my best resolutions I fell for a Comet insurance offer. The deal was 'Pay £200 to insure your camcorder and if you do not claim after 5 years we will give you your £200 back'. So, OK, I fell for it.

5 years down the track I send off my claim to get my money back only to have the claim rejected because I had not claimed within 30 days of the end of the 5 year period. (I actually claimed after about 2 months)

When I took out the insurance, I certainly never knew the claim period was so short (its is buried in the small print and I have no recollection of it being part of the advertisement). I certainly would never have taken insurance if I had known because I am often on holiday for at least part of the month in which I would have had to make the claim.

So what can I do?

Can I claim this is an unfair and unreasonable condition?

Who decides if it is?

Any suggestions gratefully received.

[blueskies]

I don't think you have any redress in this case as any poster advertising the offer will almost certainly have "subject to terms and conditions" on it and they were handed to you when you signed for the insurance agreement, or paid for your goods (both methods of sealing the contract).

[Barbara Davis]

I fell for the money back offer too. I did claim within the 30 days specified,but had no reply in the 28 days after. So I wrote asking what had happened to my refund. I was then told that my vacuum cleaner was purchased before/after the time that the offer was in the Comet stores!!! I replied asking why I had all the necessary documents if this was so. I then had a reply saying I was eligible, but had applied after the 30 days. Which was NOT true. I was corresponding with AIG Insurance and had sent copie to Comet. Yesterday I received aletter from Comet to say that I had applied after 90 days [A LIE], so was not eligible for the refund of £130, but to show their good faith they sent me £50 Comet vouchers. Does anyone know if I can take this further. It's now a matter of principle as I did everything correctly and they have obviously sold these policies under false pretences. I have found quite a number of people who have never received their refund although they carried out the instructions for claiming

Barbara

[pcr1]

The Financial Ombudsman has taken complaints on similar issues and has upheld the complaints. You may have a very strong case. See the link below.

 

Extended Warranties Case Studies

 

Edit: Middle case -

 

"We noted that the policy also stipulated that a cashback claim would only be valid if the policyholder returned the certificate to the insurer within 30 days of the end of cover. Although this clause had not formed any part of this complaint, we considered it likely that a claimant’s failure to meet the insurer’s strict deadline would not be sufficient ground for rejecting the claim."

[Rosemary]

There is also another strong theme in contract law that if they are strongly relying on a term which is to be found in the small print and it is an important part of this area of the contract, it shouldn't be hidden in the small print anyway and should preferably be in large print and easily seen. Can't remember the case but Lord Denning famously remarked that if a term is that important, it should be in big writing with a big red hand pointing to it!!

[hagenuk]

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 (CA)

 

In this case the plaintiff drove into the defendant's car park and was given a ticket by an automatic machine, which stated that it was issued subject to conditions displayed inside the car park. The conditions inside the car park were in small print and one of them excluded liability for damages to vehicles or injury to customers. The plaintiff was injured due partly to the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not held to be bound by the notice displayed inside the premises. Denning said that the clause was so wide and destructive of rights that "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling."

[Rosemary]

Thank you for that!!!! It's been 4 years since I did Contract Law but it brought it all back when I saw the case name. Academics loved that case - Denning's remarks gave them something to chew over during their coffee break:rolleyes: .

[pcr1]

Thank you for that!!!! It's been 4 years since I did Contract Law but it brought it all back when I saw the case name. Academics loved that case - Denning's remarks gave them something to chew over during their coffee break:rolleyes: .

Apologies for straying off topic... one of my favourites by far is The Wagon Mound, for its bizarre circumstances.

 

The Wagon Mound (Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock & Engineering) [1961] 1 All ER 404

By the carelessness of the defendants' servants furnace oil from a ship was spilt into a bay. The oil spread over the water to the plaintiffs' wharf, which was some six hundred feet distant and at which the plaintiffs were carrying out repairing work to a ship, including the welding of metal. Molten metal from the plaintiffs' wharf fell on floating cotton waste which, smouldering, ignited the furnace oil on the water. The plaintiffs' wharf sustained substantial damage by fire. In an action by the plaintiffs for damages for negligence it was found as a fact that the defendants did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the furnace oil was capable of being set alight when spread on water.

 

The only reason the oil ignited was because there just happened to be some floating cotton waste there as well, to act as a fuse or wick... madness.

[Rosemary]

Yes - reasonable expectation. What the 'ordinary and reasonable man' would normally have foreseen / anticipated / expected. I love law - it's so GREY!!!!