Please help! Void car insurance

[JonCris]

FOS Quote

 

The outcome is likely to be unfair if:

 

the firm would have offered cover (albeit on somewhat different terms) if it had known of the matter that the policyholder failed to disclose; and

 

the loss/claim is not associated with that matter.

[Mossycat]

First off I am NOT an advocate for the insurance industry, I come here to offer advice to people and try and help where I can.

 

I asked earlier which insurer it was because it may well be that their underwriters have decided that they have suffered too many claims involving policyholders with more than 1 car and therefore will no longer accept this, hence why the policy was voided.

 

Believe it or not am trying to help the OP and not defend an insurer, at the end of the day it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if the insurer has to pay out, so I don't have a vested interest.

 

Mossy

[JonCris]

Problem with that argument is that your NOT helping the OP your telling them there's nowt they can do when there most certainly is

After all as there's 20K at stake here which I suspect they can ill afford it's important they get proper advice & not just keep being told the insurers mantra.

Edited March 18, 2010 by JonCris

[JonCris]

Don't be too explicit as to your reasons (libel you know) but tell them you have no faith in their choice of investigator

[2ltr16valve]

I would think, and believe it reasonable... that if in fact you have two cars... insured with two different insurers, the risk is LOWERED ? being, you can only drive one car at one time, thus time behind the wheel which could involve you in an accident/collision is reduced greatly.

 

I really fail to see how this could Raise the risk and be reason to void a policy !

 

Any reason for them to wiggle out of a claim and cancel as usual I suspect !

 

To the OP, fight it mate what you got to lose

[JonCris]

I would think, and believe it reasonable... that if in fact you have two cars... insured with two different insurers, the risk is LOWERED ? being, you can only drive one car at one time, thus time behind the wheel which could involve you in an accident/collision is reduced greatly.

 

I really fail to see how this could Raise the risk and be reason to void a policy !

 

Any reason for them to wiggle out of a claim and cancel as usual I suspect !

 

To the OP, fight it mate what you got to lose

 

Quite!

[Mossycat]

Problem with that argument is that your NOT helping the OP your telling them there's nowt they can do when there most certainly is

After all as there's 20K at stake here which I suspect they can ill afford it's important they get proper advice & not just keep being told the insurers mantra.

 

On both a legal and a technical level the insurer can void a policy for non disclosure of something that would have affected their decision to grant cover under a policy. That is a fact, there is NO argument of that.

 

The OP confirms that they failed to disclose something when specifically asked, that is also a fact, there is NO argument to that.

 

The Insurer dealt with the TP claim because of their duty under the RTA, they had no choice, that is also a fact again no argument.

 

Everything I have said so far on this thread has been based on fact, and the fact is the OP is in a very weak position, some people have suggested they have no liability or to deny the claim now been made against them, that is bad advice and raising false hope. I make no apologies for painting a black picture when it is just that.

 

Now, when we find out who the Insurer concerned is we will be in a better position to advise further, and hopefully it will be positive.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

FOS Quote

 

The outcome is likely to be unfair if:

 

the firm would have offered cover (albeit on somewhat different terms) if it had known of the matter that the policyholder failed to disclose; and

 

the loss/claim is not associated with that matter.

 

It might help if people stopped looking at this from the risk isue of having access to two cars and saying that it reduces the risk, it is true, it does reduce the risk especially if the two cars are with different insurers which is the case here.

 

Now read the statement made by JonChris and look at the wording carefully.

 

It is NOT the risk that is the issue, it's the NON DISCLOSURE that is the crux of this matter.

 

If the insurer concerned would not have offered cover if they had known, that is the important point here, if they had known would they have offered cover.

 

OK, lets take it to postcodes, an insurer gets lots of claims in postcode XX1, it's a really bad area, crime, vandalism etc so they no longer offer insurance in that area. A policyholder lives in YY1 and takes out a policy but then moves to XX1 and at renewal does not tell the insurer of the new address. Had the insurer known then they wouldn't have accepted the renewal, but they didn't know so the policy was renewed, then an accident occurs and the new address is revealed. They would void the policy,because had they known then they wouldn't have issued it here.

 

Now bring it back to this case, it's down to the insurer to show that they do not insure policyholders that have access to more than one car, if they routinely do that (and not just load the policy) then the OP has a real battle, hence why finding out who the insurer concerned is, because then we can ascertain if their declaration of Void Ab Initio is valid or not.

 

Mossy

[MicheleFloyd]

What I can divulge is what my company does in the event of nondisclosure. They present the matter to the underwriting manager who makes a decision as to whether we would have declined the risk or applied terms. If the latter, we do not look to reject the claim for nondisclosure.

 

The only problem is, what insurers can do and what they will do are two different matters.

[unclebulgaria67]

Mossycat

 

This is not a black and white issue. The OP can refer the matter to the FOS and they can decide whether voidance was reasonable, given the full facts. We don't know the full information, so who knows?

 

Does knowing which Insurer is involved help? Are you going to start criticising their decision if it is a company you don't like?

[JonCris]

On both a legal and a technical level the insurer can void a policy for non disclosure of something that would have affected their decision to grant cover under a policy. That is a fact, there is NO argument of that.

 

The OP confirms that they failed to disclose something when specifically asked, that is also a fact, there is NO argument to that.

 

The Insurer dealt with the TP claim because of their duty under the RTA, they had no choice, that is also a fact again no argument.

 

Everything I have said so far on this thread has been based on fact, and the fact is the OP is in a very weak position, some people have suggested they have no liability or to deny the claim now been made against them, that is bad advice and raising false hope. I make no apologies for painting a black picture when it is just that.

 

Now, when we find out who the Insurer concerned is we will be in a better position to advise further, and hopefully it will be positive.

 

Mossy

 

Once again your quoting the worst scenario without advising the OP they may well have grounds to dispute the voiding of the policy

 

So it is NOT a black picture as you claim & don't advise the OP it is that's being disingenuous at best & at worst......

[Mossycat]

Mossycat

 

This is not a black and white issue. The OP can refer the matter to the FOS and they can decide whether voidance was reasonable, given the full facts. We don't know the full information, so who knows?

 

Does knowing which Insurer is involved help? Are you going to start criticising their decision if it is a company you don't like?

 

If you would care to read my posts again you would spot the fact that I asked for the insurer concerned so we could try and ascertain if the voidance was reasonable or not, ie if it's an insurer we know or have contacts with we can ask what their underwriting criteria is.

 

So yes, knowing which Insurer is involed helps in a pretty big way, and as for criticising their decision if it is a company I don't like, well that's probably the single most stupid comment I have ever seen on this forum.

 

I don't understand why a lot of hostility is been directed in my direction simply because I appreciate the gravity of the situation and won't paint a rosy picture for the OP, but it's not on and to that end I'm withdrawing from this thread.

 

I'll leave it to the armchair experts to help the OP.

 

End of

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Once again your quoting the worst scenario without advising the OP they may well have grounds to dispute the voiding of the policy

 

 

Work your way back through this thread and spot which post I asked for the insurer concerned to ascertain if the voidance was reasonable or regular practice for them.

 

I give up I really do

 

Mossy

[unclebulgaria67]

Armchair expert.

 

30 years experience of dealing with personal insurance issues, making decisions on voidance cases.

 

What do I know?

 

The simple fact is we don't have the full information, so even if we did know which company it was, we could only approach them for general underwriting info. As you should know if you have dealt with voidance issues, decisions are only made having full information and you have to think about the consequences.

 

The OP should be following the Insurers complaints process and referring this to the FOS. The FOS will uncover the full facts.

[JonCris]

The point is which you keep ignoring is that it's not black or white as you claim. The point is there are clear grounds for the OP to complain to the FOS about their policy being voided on the basis that it was. Also their underwriting 'criteria' no matter what it states will not permit them to act unreasonably

[Mossycat]

The point is which you keep ignoring is that it's not black or white as you claim. The point is there are clear grounds for the OP to complain to the FOS about their policy being voided on the basis that it was. Also their underwriting 'criteria' no matter what it states will not permit them to act unreasonably

 

Am I not speaking English or am I using words that are too big for you to comprehend?

 

If the risk presented is something that the insurer would normally decline to accept (in this case the having regular use of another vehicle), then it is reasonable that the policy was voided.

 

The FOS will not go to an insurer and say oh that's unreasonable because a lot of other companies would accept the risk, so it's nothing to do with if their underwriting criteria and not acting reasonably, it's what would the insurer usually do in those circumstances

 

Is that clear now?

 

Mossy

[JonCris]

Armchair expert.

 

30 years experience of dealing with personal insurance issues, making decisions on voidance cases.

 

What do I know?

 

The simple fact is we don't have the full information, so even if we did know which company it was, we could only approach them for general underwriting info. As you should know if you have dealt with voidance issues, decisions are only made having full information and you have to think about the consequences.

 

The OP should be following the Insurers complaints process and referring this to the FOS. The FOS will uncover the full facts.

 

Snap 30 years + litigating against insurers, both here & abroad, who have attempted to avoid their obligations often based on alleged none discloser in some cases to the tune of millions of pounds

 

Investigating & reporting to the MIB on uninsured claims involving both injury & death etc etc etc

[JonCris]

Also I think the fact that the insurer has acted arbitrarily may well override any underwriting criteria defence In other words that by NOT keeping the OP informed their goose might be well and truly cooked

[Mossycat]

Snap 30 years + litigating against insurers, both here & abroad, who have attempted to avoid their obligations often based on alleged none discloser in some cases to the tune of millions of pounds

 

Investigating & reporting to the MIB on uninsured claims involving both injury & death etc etc etc

 

Having read your level of understanding as displayed by you in Post 18, I'm almost tempted to ask if you ever won a case in the 30 years you have litigated against insurers, post 19 kind of suggests that maybe you didn't!

 

Then I leave the thread in safe hands then, I am sure the OP will not have to pay one penny out and will infact even get a refund for what they paid out for the repairs to the TP vehicle (plus the associated interest)

 

It's all rosy now, happy days

 

Mossy

Edited March 19, 2010 by Mossycat

[JonCris]

Am I not speaking English or am I using words that are too big for you to comprehend?

 

If the risk presented is something that the insurer would normally decline to accept (in this case the having regular use of another vehicle), then it is reasonable that the policy was voided.

 

The FOS will not go to an insurer and say oh that's unreasonable because a lot of other companies would accept the risk, so it's nothing to do with if their underwriting criteria and not acting reasonably, it's what would the insurer usually do in those circumstances

 

Is that clear now?

 

Mossy

 

Make as many personal insults as you like your still an eejit The FSO will consider the consequences & the reasonableness of their actions & not just their underwriting criteria

[unclebulgaria67]

 

The FOS will not go to an insurer and say oh that's unreasonable because a lot of other companies would accept the risk, so it's nothing to do with if their underwriting criteria and not acting reasonably, it's what would the insurer usually do in those circumstances

 

That is trueish, but the Insurers would have to provide evidence of their underwriting approach. If the FOS was suspicious of this, they would look at the general approach of other Insurers and ask serious questions. If the FOS were still not convinced, this would not stop them upholding the complaint.

[JonCris]

Then I leave the thread in safe hands then, I am sure the OP will not have to pay one penny out and will infact even get a refund for what they paid out for the repairs to the TP vehicle (plus the associated interest)

 

It's all rosy now, happy days

 

Mossy

 

Quite & yes if I was acting I would seek to recover the OP's original 3rd party outlay/payment + % on the basis that the insurer by the OP paying all that long ago has been unduly enriched so substantial compound interest would be claimed

[Mossycat]

Quite & yes if I was acting I would seek to recover the OP's original 3rd party outlay/payment + % on the basis that the insurer by the OP paying all that long ago has been unduly enriched so substantial compound interest would be claimed

 

OK problem sorted get the OP to hire you!

 

But I'd re-read post 19 if I were you before you go in all guns blazing

 

Mossy

[JonCris]

That is trueish, but the Insurers would have to provide evidence of their underwriting approach. If the FOS was suspicious of this, they would look at the general approach of other Insurers and ask serious questions. If the FOS were still not convinced, this would not stop them upholding the complaint.

 

 

Correct but if adverse the decision can still be challenged in the courts using sec 5 of the UCCTC as being unfair

 

Also remember the FOS is constantly overturned by the courts in favour of the consumer

 

Insurers are constantly being reminded by the High Court not to nit pick when considering claims

[JonCris]

I re visited post 19 & your point is? because I can't see it changes anything The OP still has a case to put to the FOS