Insurance saying no cover, day before final inspection

[sutton6344]

Is it standard procedure for buildings and contents policies to be recommended seperately when taken out at the same time ?

 

Or was this a case of the agency earning more commission by selling 2 policies ?

[honeybee13]

Hello Sutton, sorry to hear about your problems.

 

To comment on your question on having separate policies. When I was studying for the insurance professional exams 100 years ago, we were told that it's better to have buildings and contents cover with the same company. The main reason for this at the time was that it was a way to avoid being trapped between 2 insurers arguing with each other about whether a claim was for fixures or fittings and which policy would pay out.

 

I have read this thread carefully and can't see anything on having 2 policies, one for buildings and one for contents, forgive me for being thick.

 

Are you saying that you went to an insurance broker to take out these policies with different insurers, or is the 'agency' you mention part of an insurance company? They may have suggested 2 policies to save you money overall.

 

If it was a broker, did you involve them when you claimed?

 

I hope I haven't taken this off at too much of a tangent.

Edited December 2, 2009 by honeybee13
grammar.

[sutton6344]

The two policies were taken when I moved house.

 

They were both taken at the same time with the same estate agent, both policies were with the same company.

 

I have since discovered that it seems to be widespread that both building & contents are offered under one policy.

 

Was I misled when taking out the policies ?

[Mossycat]

You haven't been misled in any way.

 

Honeybee is spot on as to why it's a good idea to have your contents insured with the same company that insure your buildings.

 

Some insurers offer a combined buildings/contents some offer seperate policies, the advantage that seperate policies gives you is that it is easier to switch either buildings or contents to another insurer if you so wish.

 

In your case you had two seperate policies, both paid by DD. You failed to make a payment on one (that was your duty to ensure that payments were made), so the insurers cancelled that policy, but because you kept up the payments on the other policy it remained in force.

 

Obviously the insurers have made a mistake in dealing with your claim from the outset, they failed to notice that the policy you had in force with them didn't cover you and acted as though cover was there.

 

When they realised this they told you.

 

Your only hope is that because of their error that they might deal with this as a gesture of goodwill, because, contractually they have no obligation to you at all.

 

Mossy

[sweets-on-the-move]

seems insurance company doing a you turn here utter disgrace indeed.

[sutton6344]

In your case you had two seperate policies, both paid by DD. You failed to make a payment on one (that was your duty to ensure that payments were made), so the insurers cancelled that policy, but because you kept up the payments on the other policy it remained in force.

 

The policy document states 'we reserve the right to cancel the policy by providing 21 days prior written notice by registered post to your last known address'

 

They didn't adhere to there own policy document.

 

Obviously the insurers have made a mistake in dealing with your claim from the outset, they failed to notice that the policy you had in force with them didn't cover you and acted as though cover was there.

 

They sent a letter to the solicitor that handled my house purchase that stated 'we confirm that the cover provided under the policy is fully comprehensive and complies with the insurance requirements as stated in the council of mortgage lenders handbook under 6:13'.

 

This letter was sent 9 days before the incident

Edited April 11, 2010 by sutton6344