Please help! Void car insurance

[Mossycat]

I re visited post 19 & your point is?

 

Your level of understanding, both of the the legal term itself and the law concerned.

 

Mossy

[merlin100]

Whilst its obvious that Johnchris and mossycat have some wonderful knowledge regarding insurance ( and this thread is getting deeply interesting thanks to you both), would one of you ( or both) please explain to me why an insurance company could pay out £20k for "injuries" without giving the insured so much as a right to offer an opinion as to whether the original "accident" could have possibly caused those injuries bearing in mind that the insurance company KNOW they will be penalising the OP at a later date?

I ask this because today I received a letter from my sons solicitor saying that we are now going down the route of court proceedings.

The reason for this is that the insurance company (Endsleigh) are hiding behind the statement their insured has given to them in which he has repeated the same pack of lies he originally tried in a Magistrates Court.

Endsleigh have been made well aware of earlier court proceedings in which the magistrates actually called their insured a liar, and that he was found guilty of careless driving.

They are offering 50% settlement but will not even give anyone a figure as to what that 50% might be (might be 50% of a tenner for all we know).

My sons solicitor is saying 100% and that is final.

So my point here is that Endsleigh have at least contacted their client for his opinion which seems only right as ultimately they will be going after him to recoupe their eventual losses.

Even on this side of the fence it seems grossly unfair that an insurance company should pay out a considerable amount of money and not involve the person who they will be "going after" for that amount at a later date.

Just because the OP admitted to a nominal "shunt" between her car and the claimants, this should not allow the insurance company to arbitrarily pay out many thousands of pounds in compensation arising from "further claims" without first liasing with the OP, considering she was a material witness ( she would be the first person the police would interview, so why does an insurance company think it has the right to do things "its" way)?

Thanks boys, this thread is getting really interesting!

[Mossycat]

I ask this because today I received a letter from my sons solicitor saying that we are now going down the route of court proceedings.

The reason for this is that the insurance company (Endsleigh) are hiding behind the statement their insured has given to them in which he has repeated the same pack of lies he originally tried in a Magistrates Court.

Endsleigh have been made well aware of earlier court proceedings in which the magistrates actually called their insured a liar, and that he was found guilty of careless driving.

They are offering 50% settlement but will not even give anyone a figure as to what that 50% might be (might be 50% of a tenner for all we know).

My sons solicitor is saying 100% and that is final.

So my point here is that Endsleigh have at least contacted their client for his opinion which seems only right as ultimately they will be going after him to recoupe their eventual losses.

 

This is a liability issue, your son is saying one thing happened, the other party is saying something else happened. With no independent evidence a 50/50 settlement is the normal starting point. Your son (or his solicitor) is holding out for 100% probably because they are telling the truth.

 

It's obvious that both parties are insured and also that there is no suggestion of an attempt to void the policy, Endlseigh are keeping their policyholder updated because it has a knock on effect to the recovery of uninsured losses etc. At the end of the day if the policyholder isn't happy with the offer they can withdraw the request for indeminity and deal with it on a personal basis.

 

In the case of thisthread (ie that posted by the OP), there never was a liability dispute, the OP was honest about the accident circumstances, and when a PI claim comes along the insurers dealt with it.

 

Obviously it is subject to scrutiny, they wouldn't have paid out such a sum of money unless it was deemed reasonable, but to suggest that they have to check with the policyholder is wrong (providing they did everything possible to investigate and mitigate any payments). Consider this, the TP solicitors suggest £21,000 as reasonable, the OP's insurers come to the OP and say we are going to pay out £21,000 is that OK with you. What happens if the OP says NO it isn't (how does the OP value or assess a PI claim if they are not an expert), meanwhile the delay adds more cost to the claim.

 

So, to expediate matters, the insurer who is used to dealing and assessing PI claims deals with it and then goes to the policyholder and says we paid out X we want that back. The OP can then investigate if the payment of X was reasonable, and if it was then they have no argument on quantum and can only hope the original decision to void the policy was wrong

 

Mossy

[merlin100]

Hi Mossy,

nice to see Im not the only night owl on here!

Your post is quite interesting, but this is getting unclear ( partly because of me). So could I ask you to break this down by answering this one simple question ( maybe I should have asked this to start with) -

This is not hypothetical.

 

I own 3 vehicles. Because they are relatively different, ( Galaxy 1.9tdi. Focus zetec 1.6, and a Clio 1.2, they are all insured by different insurers for no other reason than each insurance company offered the best deal.

Can you tell me what is the link between them that could give an insurance company a reason to void any of the policies for no other reason that I own other vehicles?

I understand what you say regarding the fact that they ask a simple question and can void a policy based on the answer to that question.

But where is the relevance?

Each insurance company only has a possible liability on its insured vehicle so for it to ask about other vehicles has no relevance?

What I am saying is if insurer A voided my policy because it found out about insurer B or C, what is the link bearing in mind insurer A has no consideration, or would ever suffer a detriment in relation to B or C?

So conversely, if an insurance company voided a policy based on the above, it must surely be susceptible for a counter claim for remoteness?

The insurance company is entitled to ask any questions it likes. But in a court of Law those questions will be tested when challenged as to relevence?

Based on the above, what is the difference between an insurance company asking me if I own another vehicle ( for which it has never been asked to insure and therefore has no interest in) and what is my favourite colour?

Neither seems to have any relevent bearing.

[JonCris]

Do you mean subrogation?

 

Under Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, subsections 5 and 7, the insurer can recover the amount paid from the person who original had the insurance cover.

 

There is no provision in the act for the insured to be able to defend any recovery against them due to a void on their policy and as such a breach of a contract.

 

If this was the case then if you had an accident which was your fault, you could simply confirm to the insurers that you have materially witheld information from them which would lead to them cancelling the policy and then they would not be able to recover any losses from you.

 

 

Of course there isn't but that's not what I & others are saying. We are saying that the OP has a good case to put before the ombudsman in particular to add to their argument the fact that the insurer failed to keep the OP informed of any losses they might incur. This fact alone puts the insurer on the back foot

 

& of course the insurer can collect from the person who caused the incident namely the former policy holder that's always been the case, its known as 'claims recovery' but that does not mean that they can act arbitrarily without informing the OP particularly when they intend imposing on them a liability of 20k

[Mossycat]

Hi Mossy,

nice to see Im not the only night owl on here!

Your post is quite interesting, but this is getting unclear ( partly because of me). So could I ask you to break this down by answering this one simple question ( maybe I should have asked this to start with) -

This is not hypothetical.

 

I own 3 vehicles. Because they are relatively different, ( Galaxy 1.9tdi. Focus zetec 1.6, and a Clio 1.2, they are all insured by different insurers for no other reason than each insurance company offered the best deal.

Can you tell me what is the link between them that could give an insurance company a reason to void any of the policies for no other reason that I own other vehicles?

I understand what you say regarding the fact that they ask a simple question and can void a policy based on the answer to that question.

But where is the relevance?

Each insurance company only has a possible liability on its insured vehicle so for it to ask about other vehicles has no relevance?

What I am saying is if insurer A voided my policy because it found out about insurer B or C, what is the link bearing in mind insurer A has no consideration, or would ever suffer a detriment in relation to B or C?

So conversely, if an insurance company voided a policy based on the above, it must surely be susceptible for a counter claim for remoteness?

The insurance company is entitled to ask any questions it likes. But in a court of Law those questions will be tested when challenged as to relevence?

Based on the above, what is the difference between an insurance company asking me if I own another vehicle ( for which it has never been asked to insure and therefore has no interest in) and what is my favourite colour?

Neither seems to have any relevent bearing.

 

Read post 33 again

 

Insurers determine the criteria that they will and will not insure

 

Look at the postcode example

 

The relevance is "would the insurer have accepted the risk if they had known all the facts beforehand", the insurer in this case is saying that had they known about the second car then they wouldn't have hence the voidance of the policy.

 

Mossy

[Endymion]

Although the posts are getting most enjoyable, the main point seems to have been missed.

 

This is the fact that the policyholder has accepted the void on her policy and has, nearly 4 years ago, paid for her own repairs and that of the TP.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the insurers should have kept her informed of any PI claim and should have mitigated any losses the policyholder was going to be liable for, hence my advice re getting the file on the PI claim (especially if it was an LVI).

 

The problem is therefore trying to persuade a court that 4 years later and after paying for all the repairs that the void on the policy was not fair and why it isn't fair now, but was deemed fair 4 years ago by the insured.

 

Personally I can't see the OP getting a Court to go against the insurers in this one. I think it is best to mitigate the losses by attacking the way the PI claim was settled.

 

Although saying that, I would, if I managed to get funding for the defence of any proceedings (legal aid/BTE/ATE insurance etc), fight it and fight it in Court (a) to be as beliggerent as possible and (b) the insurers might not want a reportable case in such circumstances if they lose.

[JonCris]

Having a had voided policy reinstated after a number of years I disagree & in this case we are talking about a relatively unsophisticated ordinery consumer who assumed based on what there were told that that was it. they paid the TP's special damages & were never informed until after the event that they would be expected to pay 20K

 

It's the failure of the insurer to advise the OP of their probable & substancial liability which weakens the case of the insurer ........ also I bet the insurer didn't advise the OP that their decision was open to appeal to the FSO & if so another failing on their part

[JonCris]

PS it was never deemed fair 4 years ago it was accepted by the OP in the mistaken & somewhat naive belief that the insurer would have acted fairly with them & that there was no alternative

[mft]

Thank you to everyone who has replied to my post, there is a lot of useful information on here and just sifting through it all to see which is the best route to take...

 

The insurer is Provident Insurance Plc.

 

This is the response we have received from our letter we originally sent to them :-

 

"The omitted disclosure is very relevant. Had we been made aware at the inception of the policy that there were two vehicles in the household, we would not have accepted the risk.

 

The policy has been taken out stating that you (*my mum*) is the main user of the vehicle, but correspondence from August 2006 shows that your daughter was the main user. This should have been notified at inception of the policy. We look forward to receiving your settlement proposals by return" At inception of the policy - my mum was the main driver, but when I started using the car for work, we did not think to advise the insurer of a change, as I was already a named driver on the policy and presumed I was already insured!

 

What I don't believe is that they say they would not have accepted the risk. If my Mum had called them and advised that I started to use the car more, surely they would not say "sorry, we can not offer you insurance" - surely they would have amended the premium to reflect the risk?? I have had a look on their website, and they offer insurance for young people, women etc...unless perhaps they didn't offer that back then?

 

A friend of mine who's father used to work in insurance said I should ask the following: -

 

What was the run of events which lead them to make these payments?

When did they make payment/s?

Why they did not inform you that there was an ongoing claim?

 

After the accident - everything was reported through insurance, the TP knew who my insurer was, and I knew theres. The reason I paid for her repairs back then is that I had received a threatening letter from TP insurer saying I would be taken to court if I did not pay, that's when I called my insurer and that's when they advised they had decided to void the policy etc! I just paid it as I wanted everything to be over and done with, did not realise a PI claim would be made, however if we had tried to fight it, surely it would of been more hassle to fight than pay £900 for repairs?? However if I had known a bill for £34k was coming our way, then we would have tried to fight it!!

 

Provident did not contact us at all that a PI claim was being made...

 

We don't have any legal cover through house insurance etc, and not sure if we could afford to go to court - will look into legal aid etc.

 

Need to respond to them now, not sure whether to go to a solicitor or take complaints, then FOS route (which the citizen's advice bureau advised.

 

Thanks again, I will continue reading through all the posts and reply to any other questions, or anything I may have missed out.

 

 

 

 

[vusys1]

if the insurers voided the policy, shouldnt they have had the OP to sign the claim over to them to deal under article 74 of the RTA?? (can someone with claims knowledge back that up?)

[platinum]

I deal with financial services complaints for a living - not, on the whole, in motor insurance and I do not know the details of this case but:

 

I do remember that, at one time, the AA were using a common application for particular classes of insurance - it used to cause Which? no end of problems with their best buy tables because it meant slight differences in cover depending on which insurer underwrote it.

 

I do not know if they still do but it would appear, to a consumer, that it was actually underwritten by the AA. If that was still the case when the policy was taken out then it would give grounds for complaint against the AA that it knew of both vehicles and, as far as the insured was concerned, it was all one and the same.

 

As far as the underwriter is concerned, there are cases where a claims team has attempted to void a policy and when the FOS has intervened it has admitted that it would have accepted the policy - although perhaps on different terms.

 

So it is probably worth complaining to both.

[mft]

Quick update! This is now over and resolved - (I hope!!) The insurance company have closed the case and waived their right to the recovery for the money!! Confimation received in writing on Friday. Wahoo - result! So pleased! Again thanks to all those who replied to my initial post, really helped a lot!

[unclebulgaria67]

MFT

 

Well done. I think the Insurers realised that their request to be reimbursed for their payout was not legally sound. If they had a case, they would have pursued this.

[honeybee13]

Well done for your persistence. I'm pleased for you, what a relief!

 

HB

[DeejayP999]

Congratulations with getting this sorted (and it certainly made for an interesting thread!).

 

...I think the Insurers realised that their request to be reimbursed for their payout was not legally sound. If they had a case, they would have pursued this.

 

I agree.

 

Essentially, the insurers were accusing the OP of "Fronting" and were well within their rights to void the policy on that basis.

 

Where they screwed up was in not informing the OP at the inception of the PI claim. The OP should have been involved at each stage of the negotiations so that, if necessary, they could challenge the evidence and/or the amount awarded.

 

This is nothing to do with insurance per se - it's basic legal procedure.

[Richa]

HiI know this is a very old post but I am in a similar situation. I got my car and insurace in Feb 2013 and I passed my driving test in Jan 2012. DUring this time I was driving my comoany car and I had two claims on that. My uncle went to the broker and sorted my car insurance for me. I had given them the copy of my Driving license and the letter from the leasing company stating both my claims. In April I ran at the back of another car and it was literally just a bump. I am still driving the same car without any repair which indicates it was not a massive crash. I received a call from the insurance company stated that they are voiding my insurance as I had told them that I passed my driving test in 2006 but I had actually passed my driving test in 2012. I am at fault that I did not read the policy documents but I never mentioned 2006. I had also given them the copy of DL which they are declining now. They also asked me to keep on paying the premium for full year which I did. Last year July I received another letter from them saying that I owe thwm 7000 something for the claim without mentioning any details. After so much trouble I got them to send a letter to include the break down of the cost. It turned out the couple (other car involved in the accident) had claimed PI and had some legal fees as well.Initially when my policy was voided i went to Ombudsman but my claim was rejected on the basis that I should have read the documents and got the policy documents corrected if they were wrong. When I received the letter from the company for 7000, I again contacted Ombudsman and they again rejected my claim on the fact that it is within their right to claim this money.Its been nearly one year it is happening and I had changed my address and had informed the insurance company and they had been sending the letters to my new address.But after the claim rejection by Ombudsman, I received a letter at my old address that they want the money withoin 21 days else they will start the legal proceedings and I will have to bear the cost.It was just a chance that I went to the old house and got the letter, else it would have gone un noticed. Can someone please let me know what my options are? Do I have a fighting chance? Should I offer settlement?Please help me urgently.Thanks

[dx100uk]

please start a new thread

 

 

of your own.

 

 

might be an idea to pop some sentences and blank lines in too

 

 

dx