Don't forget to cancel your insurance.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by 650

Unregulated ********. **** all insurance companies right in the pussy.

Originally Posted by 650

Seems like something that, really, should be stated verbally and requires acknowledgement from the customer upon taking out a policy.

Again, unregulated ********. The insurance world needs incinerating.

You've not read the thread. This is a situation the insurance industry has found itself in, not one it has wished for. Short-sighted political reaction to public hysteria might be a better target in this case.

Unregulated? You couldn't be further from the mark. I'm responsible for regulatory compliance in my own insurance business and I also completed the same work for my wife's childminding business. You may be surprised that looking after other peoples kids is massively less regulated than insurance.

Don't get me wrong, there is much wrong with the industry. I could give you a list of 20 things that would be more deserving of your ire.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

Not sure I can agree with this, especially the "knowingly" bit.

I would counter-argue like this:
1. My certificate of insurance has me (& my wife) specifically stated as the only permitted drivers.
2. So, my contract is scope defined. Any cover for others is excluded as far as I understand and so the implication that any other driver is entitled to cover under the policy appears to require me to have a detailed understanding of road traffic, insurance or other statutory legislation.
3. Ignorance may be no defence but I suggest that, if 2 is not true, then this is an unreasonable contract condition (either real or implied) as I am not professionally qualified in law and cannot be considered "expert".
4. An obligation to cancel under stipulated conditions should not be interpreted as a contractual entitlement to cover for other parties.
5. Therefore, I refute the validity of the contractual obligation being relied upon.

If I found myself in this situation I think I'd be going down a similar route.

I can't say how successful it would be as I can't find a single case. As I said, the insurers theoretically have a right of recovery against the policyholder but (quite rightly) they don't actually seem to pursue it.

Originally Posted by Ruffy

(BTW, Tam, I'm not picking on you personally but you appear to be the legally knowledgeable one in the thread so far, offering a theoretical justification for the reported possible action claimed in the OP report.)

No problem. I'm only trying to explain the situation. I'm certainly not justifying it.

[Heorot]

Tam is right. I just retired from claims handling and had several cases like this to deal with.

[Dave-the-rave]

Now ya know why some folks when selling a vehicle don't allow test drives.

[650]

Originally Posted by MisterTommyH

Really? While I understand your viewpoint thats not really practical is it?

If a customer can't be bothered to read the small print of the policy document (not saying that I do) is it realistic to expect that an insurance company should read out every one of those T&Cs and get agreement over the phone? (It could be any one of the terms that catches you out... it's just in this case it happened to be this one).

We ALL enter into numerous contracts every day - from when we buy an insurance policy to when we park in a council parking bay. Not saying that it's right... just that it's the way it is. It's not just insurance.

Devils advocate, much? Be realistic, NOBODY reads the small print.

This is no different a situation to that of loan companies being obliged to run through various small print factors of a contract with you over the phone, which you need to verbally say yes/no to.

And, hardly practical? It'd take all of 30 seconds to say to a customer and get acknowledgement:

"we the insurer require you the insured to cancel the insurance immediately upon selling the vehicle on, or you could be liable for any expenses raised in the event of an uninsured acident - do you agree"

"yeah, sound"

Took me about 35 seconds to type.

[keith_d]

Why not add a clause specifically stating that cover provided by the policy terminates immediately the vehicle is sold or transferred to another registered keeper?

If you want to suspend cover pending the purchase of another vehicle you would need to inform them in advance. Otherwise your policy would be terminated immediately you sold your car/bike.

[squirrel_hunter]

Originally Posted by Heorot

Tam is right. I just retired from claims handling and had several cases like this to deal with.

And from your experiance what was the outcomes?

Originally Posted by keith_d

Why not add a clause specifically stating that cover provided by the policy terminates immediately the vehicle is sold or transferred to another registered keeper?

Please do not try to apply common sense to the insurance industry.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by keith_d

Why not add a clause specifically stating that cover provided by the policy terminates immediately the vehicle is sold or transferred to another registered keeper?

That's effectively the case but, so far as Third Party damages are concerned, the legislation overrides it.

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by 650

Devils advocate, much?

Absolutely!

Originally Posted by 650

Be realistic, NOBODY reads the small print.

I agree, as I said, I don't. Doesn't change the fact that you are entering a contract and it's you're responsibility to understand it.

Originally Posted by 650

This is no different a situation to that of loan companies being obliged to run through various small print factors of a contract with you over the phone, which you need to verbally say yes/no to.

And, hardly practical? It'd take all of 30 seconds to say to a customer and get acknowledgement:

"we the insurer require you the insured to cancel the insurance immediately upon selling the vehicle on, or you could be liable for any expenses raised in the event of an uninsured acident - do you agree"

"yeah, sound"

Took me about 35 seconds to type.

It took 35 seconds for that one clause. Who chooses which clauses should be read out? There could be any number of clauses just as contentious as this.... But those issued haven't come to our attention yet. If its verbally confirmed how is this recorded as proof? Do the insurers need to read out the clause which says you're not covered if you don' lock your car? Seems common sense to me and you, but not everyone has that.

[Heorot]

Squirrel,

the most recent one was where I was pursuing a third party recovery after an accident. The initial response from them was that they wouldn't pay out because their insured had invalidated the insurance by not revealing pertinent facts when they took out the policy. I pointed out their legal obligation to pay us. They agreed to settle our claim and added our costs to the rest of their costs incurred as a result of the accident. They also sent me a copy of a letter that they had sent to their (un)insured that gave notice that they would be pursuing them through the courts for recovery of their total outlay. So I can categorically state that insurers will pursue the uninsured for any third party settlement.

As for recovering costs from the MIB uninsured fund, there is a £300 excess that will be deducted from any settlement, and be prepared to wait months before any payout is agreed (if ever).