Insurance

[squirrel_hunter]

Originally Posted by TamSV

I think this was a renewal so it would have been a bit of paper or an e-mail. Terah probably didn't speak to anyone or answer any questions.

Good point I missed that.

Originally Posted by TamSV

However, the information has now come to light and IF it genuinely affects that insurers pricing then they're entitled to the correct premium.

As its a renewal I think from memory they state in their letter that if circumstances have changed to notify them. Going from what I've read here I would think that circumstances have remained the same as I would not have made a claim. However I should add that if the wife is a named rider on the bike insurance then of course the claim should be declared.

Originally Posted by TamSV

So you don't disclose the facts (innocently or otherwise) and it's up to the insurer to find out the truth within a reasonable timescale? As a point of principle you know that can't be right.

No I've not said that. They ask a number of questions which you should answer correctly, and that I do. To say I don't disclose facts for any reason is quite misleading, how as an average man on the street am I to know what facts should be disclosed, hence them asking me questions. Keeping with Terah's example his wife making a claim regardless if it was on his car is not him making a claim and thus I feel is quite reasonable that this isn't disclosed as if I were in his situation I would not think it was a fact that was important.

But that is where the checks come in to highlight if there is a discrepancy so it can be investigated. However these checks should be made within a reasonable time frame.

Now assuming a few things here such as the incident with the wife didn't happen the day before the renewal of the bike and was already in the system then why did it take 2 months to find out? Insurance companies always say that they cross check the details and as its all done on computer it does not take 2 months. Would it be fair if they checked the day before the expiry of the years policy and then asked for the difference? Thats why there is a reasonable time frame, 16 days (distance selling rules, or a contract cooling off period, its been sometime since I checked which one) whereby the policy can be canceled.

So as a point of principle yes if you have provided the information as requested in good faith then if there is a problem it should be addressed within a reasonable time frame.

Originally Posted by TamSV

The insurer isn't obliged to check your facts. Plenty of them will only check the database AFTER you've had a claim, and then you might be in the ****.

No they are not obliged to check, but they all claim they do. If this is discovered after a claim then they will ask for the difference in premium, where we would be having the same conversation. Its unlikely that the insurer would withdraw cover if as we have here the insurance holder has disclosed the information they thought they needed to in good faith. And then there is alwys the Ombudsman to turn to... Unless of course there is an allegation of fraud, but thats a different kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by TamSV

The case fee is only charged if the complaint progresses to investigation. On reviewing the insurers final response, most of them don't make it that far. Alot of complaints have no merit so they don't get charged.

But the complaint may make it that far and cost the company. And its that unsurety in the system that you can use to your advantage.

Originally Posted by TamSV

Otherwise you could make a living phoning insurance companies all day demanding £100 or you'll complain about their annoying adverts or the state of their car park.

While I can't condone blackmail or extortion, I can't help but think this is an excellent idea to get rid opera singers, rodents, and awful cover versions of the Village People greatest hit among, many, many more from my and everyone else's life.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

Keeping with Terah's example his wife making a claim regardless if it was on his car is not him making a claim and thus I feel is quite reasonable that this isn't disclosed as if I were in his situation I would not think it was a fact that was important.

Terah's wife didn't make a claim - she had the accident. It's Terah's car and his policy. He made the claim - no-one else could have done so. If a cheque was issued his name would have been on it.

I agree it's totally understandable that he wouldn't think of disclosing it, but it does need to be disclosed.

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

But that is where the checks come in to highlight if there is a discrepancy so it can be investigated. However these checks should be made within a reasonable time frame.

It's not how things are at the moment. The law hasn't kept up with how people are buying insurance these days - often online and totally absent of any advice.

The principle of Utmost Good Faith gives insurers a pretty powerful tool to avoid claims if they're so inclined and the average bloke in the street doesn't always have sufficient understanding to keep himself right.

I think the obligations need to shift a bit further towards the insurer, and I'm sure that will happen, but the law always struggles to keep up with reality.

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

how as an average man on the street am I to know what facts should be disclosed.

Ah come on that's easy - Marine Insurance Act (1906) "Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent underwriter in fixing a premium or whether he will take a risk"

Yeah, exactly.

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

While I can't condone blackmail or extortion, I can't help but think this is an excellent idea to get rid opera singers, rodents, and awful cover versions of the Village People greatest hit among, many, many more from my and everyone else's life.

I'm on board with that. Although the "Chang Kaka Waa Waa" 70's pron soundtrack I'm using as my telephone "on hold" music has been going down quite well recently.

Originally Posted by TamSV

Terah's wife didn't make a claim - she had the accident. It's Terah's car and his policy. He made the claim - no-one else could have done so.

Correct, although when it was being handled I hadn't considered it in that way.

I renewed over the phone, so I can't recall if I was asked the question, and if I was exactly how the question was worded. After renewal I received a Statement of Fact, and the relevant question on it would be:

Have you or any other person who may ride had an accident or loss (fire, theft or any other cause whatsoever) in the last three years involving any motor vehicle (of any kind) whether owned, ridden, or in custody? This includes any accident or loss not covered or claimed under an insurance policy, and whether at fault or not. (If yes, please give details below)

At first reading of that I assumed I had correctly answered the question with 'No'. Re-reading it now I can see how it could be argued that this applies to my case, but it certainly isn't clear or obvious (to me).

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

As I understand it they ask the question have "You" had an accident or claim when you take the policy out. From what I can tell you have answered the question correctly and to the best of your knowledge. I cannot see how this should now effect your premium on your bike. I would question them on this.

That's how I read the question, and it was certainly done correctly to the best of my knowledge, but as above that may not have been technically correct to their question. (Also, wife is not on the bike policy)

Originally Posted by TamSV

Ah come on that's easy - Marine Insurance Act (1906) "Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent underwriter in fixing a premium or whether he will take a risk"

If only I had read that when renewing, it would all have been much clearer

I called them yesterday before posting, and after explaining the situation the customer services bloke said he would check with the underwriter and came back and confirmed they still wanted the additional premium - whether this really went to an underwriter or if he just checked with a supervisor I don't know.

As advised I'll do a bit more digging - I'm particularly interested in whether that extra £60 really is what they would have charged if I'd disclosed originally, or whether there's a punitive element in it.

I have 14 days to pay up to maintain cover, so once I have more info I'll write them more formally to explain and try and get them to justify the additional cost, and the expectation of disclosure. If I don't get anywhere I'll probably just pay up.

There should be a level of 'reasonableness' in the conditions of any contract, but I'll not hold my breath.

Originally Posted by TamSV

Ah come on that's easy - Marine Insurance Act (1906) "Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent Nunderwriter in fixing a premium or whether he will take a risk".

I think you've gotten confused, the man said underwriter, not underwater.

Bibio - dont confuse 'no claims discount' with 'accidents'. The former is exactly that, a discount you are given, I have no claims discounts on bike and car and one does not affect the other. In fact the car no claims, the insurer has agreed to apply the discount to two policies with them as their way if giving a multi car discount, so actually I have three no claims discounts although traditionally insurance companies didnt allow that.

If I have an accident however, I have to declare it on both car and bike policies (4 vehicles across 3 policies), but it will only affect my no claims discount on 1 policy.

Squirrel Hunter - I haven't read all your posts, but as I'm sure Tam will have pointed out, your very first line was wrong. Have 'You' had an accident or made a claim? Yes he has, he made a claim, it is him that insured for his girlfriend to drive the car. She is his liability.

It is also his responsibility to inform his insurer of the accident regardless of what questions were asked at the time.

Your first line being wrong lead me to conclude 'OK, doesnt know what he's talking about', so I didn't read the rest, but I can see there are lots of long posts and debate on the subject.

Tam however is one of the few people on the forum who really does know his onions on the subject of insurance. Listen to him.

[squirrel_hunter]

Originally Posted by TamSV

Terah's wife didn't make a claim - she had the accident. It's Terah's car and his policy. He made the claim - no-one else could have done so.

I didn't know it worked that way, and it would appear I wasn't alone in that... And that then highlights the problem of how can a company sell something to a customer that they do not fully understand? Reminds me of that little PPI thing and we've all seen whats happening with that one.

I would still do the extra digging and look at complaining and letting the company know this as it may get you somewhere. It has worked for me in the past...

[MisterTommyH]

Have you or any other person who may ride had an accident or loss (fire, theft or any other cause whatsoever) in the last three years involving any motor vehicle (of any kind) whether owned, ridden, or in custody? This includes any accident or loss not covered or claimed under an insurance policy, and whether at fault or not. (If yes, please give details below)

Hang on a minute. All the arguments I'm seeing are stating that because Terah would have had to make the CLAIM then he should have declared it. Above is apparently what the question was, and it says nothing about have you (Terah) made a claim.

It quite clearly says accident or loss (I'm taking loss to mean theft / fire not financial loss - please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, as Terah hasn't himself had the accident. And Mrs Terah is not 'any other person who may ride' (I presume) then he has in fact done nothing wrong by not highlighting the claim.

Again, have Carol Nash just brought this up because there is A claim logged against the policy without checking to see who it was?

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by MisterTommyH

Hang on a minute. All the arguments I'm seeing are stating that because Terah would have had to make the CLAIM then he should have declared it. Above is apparently what the question was, and it says nothing about have you (Terah) made a claim.

It quite clearly says accident or loss (I'm taking loss to mean theft / fire not financial loss - please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, as Terah hasn't himself had the accident. And Mrs Terah is not 'any other person who may ride' (I presume) then he has in fact done nothing wrong by not highlighting the claim.

Again, have Carol Nash just brought this up because there is A claim logged against the policy without checking to see who it was?

Terah's property (the car) was damaged so the loss was his - he has the insurable financial interest in the car so he did suffer a loss.

In insurance terms, a "loss" is anything that would have been covered by the policy concerned. They are actually looking for information that is more far reaching than just claims.

As an example, you might be comprehensively insured and suffer damage to your vehicle which you could have claimed for, but decide to fix yourself. Alternatively, the damage is cosmetic and you decide just to leave it unrepaired. Or maybe you hit a third party and just pay for his damage yourself rather than deal with it via the insurance.

None of the above examples are "claims", but they are all "losses".

Most people probably don't realise that and, as a result, I would guess it's one of the biggest areas of accidental non-disclosure.

[mattSV]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Squirrel Hunter - I haven't read all your posts, but as I'm sure Tam will have pointed out, your very first line was wrong. Have 'You' had an accident or made a claim? Yes he has, he made a claim, it is him that insured for his girlfriend to drive the car. She is his liability.

It is also his responsibility to inform his insurer of the accident regardless of what questions were asked at the time.

Your first line being wrong lead me to conclude 'OK, doesnt know what he's talking about', so I didn't read the rest, but I can see there are lots of long posts and debate on the subject.

Tam however is one of the few people on the forum who really does know his onions on the subject of insurance. Listen to him.

**** - he insured his car for both his wife AND girlfriend to drive