|
edition
673 posts
60 months
|
Out of interest how much is/was the RS6 valued at?
|
|
|
POORCARDEALER
5,712 posts
111 months
|
mattt7 said: It's been a while since i've posted anything, but i've now got an update after 2 months of the FOS looking over my case. The adjudicator has decided in my favour, he has said that now the FOS stance is that each 12 month period of insurance is a new contract and the insurer cannot void the current policy contract for non-disclosure of material information if that information was not material at the date of the last renewal.
This is good news, however the insurance company have not agreed with him and now my case is being escalated to an actual Ombudsman for the final decision. The adjudicator will obviously pass on his findings and conclusion.
So hopefully in a month or so i'll get a definitive answer, after about 9-10mths. Good news and the right outcome (hopefully)
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
79 months
|
edition said: Out of interest how much is/was the RS6 valued at? Well this is probably going to be another twist in the tale. No value has obviously been put on the car yet, as we did not get to that point with my claim, they tried to void it prior to a value being given. So as 10mths would have passed and of course depreciation has had an effect in that time, i presume they will have to put a value on the car at the time of the accident back in November 2011. However i'm sure this again is going to be a bit of a battle to get a good, honest price for my car based on what it was worth back then, of course if the Ombudsman is in my favour and the insurer has to pay out, then i'm sure they will be fighting tooth and nail for me to get the smallest pay out possible. Anyway i'll cross this bridge when i get there. For now i'm just hoping the Ombudsmans final decision is in my direction. Thanks to everyone for the good luck wishes
|
|
|
havoc
20,223 posts
105 months
|
Make sure you claim interest on the amount for the year they've dicked you around too! 
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,317 posts
20 months
|
mattt7 said: The adjudicator has decided in my favour, he has said that now the FOS stance is that each 12 month period of insurance is a new contract and the insurer cannot void the current policy contract for non-disclosure of material information if that information was not material at the date of the last renewal. I'm glad it's gone in your favour although in a wider sense it does seem a bit unfair on insurers. If I understand correctly, and using an extreme example that doesn't reflect your situation, say a drink driver gets his licence back and insures his car and deliberately fails to tell his insurers of his conviction. The insurance company concerned load drink drivers for 5 yrs. 6 yrs later, and still with the same insurers, he has a claim and insurers find out the truth. They have to honour the claim, even though the policyholder has diddled them (and honest punters)out of the correct premium over the first 5 yrs? Seems a bit much really.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Variomatic
702 posts
31 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: I'm glad it's gone in your favour although in a wider sense it does seem a bit unfair on insurers.
If I understand correctly, and using an extreme example that doesn't reflect your situation, say a drink driver gets his licence back and insures his car and deliberately fails to tell his insurers of his conviction. The insurance company concerned load drink drivers for 5 yrs. 6 yrs later, and still with the same insurers, he has a claim and insurers find out the truth. They have to honour the claim, even though the policyholder has diddled them (and honest punters)out of the correct premium over the first 5 yrs? Seems a bit much really. Although you could argue in that situation (assuming he's made no claims during that 5 years) that, regardless of the DD conviction, his risk level for that time is now established definitively as zero. Regardless of the lack of faith involved, he has actually saved the "honest punters" money by being one of those that the insurers make a clean profit out of. The fact that profit is less than it might have been is neither here nor there, it's still a profit and helps to keep the premiums for the "honest" drivers lower than they would otherwise be.
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
79 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: I'm glad it's gone in your favour although in a wider sense it does seem a bit unfair on insurers.
If I understand correctly, and using an extreme example that doesn't reflect your situation, say a drink driver gets his licence back and insures his car and deliberately fails to tell his insurers of his conviction. The insurance company concerned load drink drivers for 5 yrs. 6 yrs later, and still with the same insurers, he has a claim and insurers find out the truth. They have to honour the claim, even though the policyholder has diddled them (and honest punters)out of the correct premium over the first 5 yrs? Seems a bit much really. I guess insurance companies never diddle anyone on a daily basis ;-)
|
|
|
GC8
9,815 posts
60 months
|
Twiggy, do you frown when you walk?
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,414 posts
114 months
|
Variomatic said: Although you could argue in that situation (assuming he's made no claims during that 5 years) that, regardless of the DD conviction, his risk level for that time is now established definitively as zero.
Regardless of the lack of faith involved, he has actually saved the "honest punters" money by being one of those that the insurers make a clean profit out of. The fact that profit is less than it might have been is neither here nor there, it's still a profit and helps to keep the premiums for the "honest" drivers lower than they would otherwise be. I think that any profit might be somewhat affected by writing off an RS6!
|
|
|
havoc
20,223 posts
105 months
|
Ut TwigtheWonderkid said: mattt7 said: The adjudicator has decided in my favour, he has said that now the FOS stance is that each 12 month period of insurance is a new contract and the insurer cannot void the current policy contract for non-disclosure of material information if that information was not material at the date of the last renewal. I'm glad it's gone in your favour although in a wider sense it does seem a bit unfair on insurers. Seems a bit much really. I have to disagree...insurance is a form of contract, so the ombudsman's opinion seems perfectly reasonable. It's also akin to the 'spent convictions' terms in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,317 posts
20 months
|
Variomatic said: TwigtheWonderkid said: I'm glad it's gone in your favour although in a wider sense it does seem a bit unfair on insurers.
If I understand correctly, and using an extreme example that doesn't reflect your situation, say a drink driver gets his licence back and insures his car and deliberately fails to tell his insurers of his conviction. The insurance company concerned load drink drivers for 5 yrs. 6 yrs later, and still with the same insurers, he has a claim and insurers find out the truth. They have to honour the claim, even though the policyholder has diddled them (and honest punters)out of the correct premium over the first 5 yrs? Seems a bit much really. Although you could argue in that situation (assuming he's made no claims during that 5 years) that, regardless of the DD conviction, his risk level for that time is now established definitively as zero. Regardless of the lack of faith involved, he has actually saved the "honest punters" money by being one of those that the insurers make a clean profit out of. The fact that profit is less than it might have been is neither here nor there, it's still a profit and helps to keep the premiums for the "honest" drivers lower than they would otherwise be. Well not really, because during the first 5 yrs he paid far less into the pot than he should have done. There would have been honest policyholders who were also claim free following their drink drive offence, who would have paid in much more having told the truth.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,317 posts
20 months
|
GC8 said: Twiggy, do you frown when you walk? I thought I raised a valid point. Some people have disagreed, and said why, which is fine. Differing viewpoints makes for a sensible discussion. Have you actually got anything vaguely worthwhile to interject into the discussion?
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,317 posts
20 months
|
havoc said: I have to disagree...insurance is a form of contract, so the ombudsman's opinion seems perfectly reasonable.
It's also akin to the 'spent convictions' terms in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Yes, there's some truth in that. I see where you're coming from. I just think that in the example I gave, someone can lie thru their teeth for years and still get a claim paid when the truth is discovered. Honest policyholders lose out ultimately.
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
79 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Yes, there's some truth in that. I see where you're coming from. I just think that in the example I gave, someone can lie thru their teeth for years and still get a claim paid when the truth is discovered. Honest policyholders lose out ultimately. I'd like to point out that in this case there was no lying through my teeth. I would not take the risk on a RS6 or on a Lamborghini Diablo SV worth over £80k that was on the policy before, if you read the earlier posts from months ago you'll see how the error came about. Either way, this accident happened 6 years after the conviction, I had 6 years NCB, no convictions etc at the time of the accident. I could have gone to any insurer to get a policy last November as a new customer and would have been taken on with open arms. Unfortunately i stuck with the insurer we have used for years and have probably paid well over £30k in premiums now.
|
|
|
davepoth
20,186 posts
69 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Yes, there's some truth in that. I see where you're coming from. I just think that in the example I gave, someone can lie thru their teeth for years and still get a claim paid when the truth is discovered. Honest policyholders lose out ultimately. If he'd written off the car twelve months earlier then this would have been an entirely different argument.
|
|
|
Robsti
4,573 posts
76 months
|
The insurance company should work out how much more he would have paid in the previous 5 years of non disclosure then deduct this from the payout on the RS6!
|
|
|
james_tigerwoods
10,852 posts
67 months
|
IS it just me that finds it odd that an insurance company will fight this, but don't seem to be actively fighting genuine fraudulent claims?
|
|
|
randlemarcus
8,764 posts
101 months
|
james_tigerwoods said: IS it just me that finds it odd that an insurance company will fight this, but don't seem to be actively fighting genuine fraudulent claims? Doesn't seem odd to me in the least. Whiplash etc claims are hugely stacked in favour of the compo-monkeys, this is hugely stacked against the customer.
|
|
|
davepoth
20,186 posts
69 months
|
randlemarcus said: james_tigerwoods said: IS it just me that finds it odd that an insurance company will fight this, but don't seem to be actively fighting genuine fraudulent claims? Doesn't seem odd to me in the least. Whiplash etc claims are hugely stacked in favour of the compo-monkeys, this is hugely stacked against the customer. And the compo-monkeys are often owned by insurance companies; it's a big circle jerk and no money is lost to the industry. In this case it's a big payout to a person with no way of recovering the money.
|
|
|
PAULJ5555
925 posts
46 months
|
mattt7 said: I'd like to point out that in this case there was no lying through my teeth. I would not take the risk on a RS6 or on a Lamborghini Diablo SV worth over £80k that was on the policy before, if you read the earlier posts from months ago you'll see how the error came about. Either way, this accident happened 6 years after the conviction, I had 6 years NCB, no convictions etc at the time of the accident. I could have gone to any insurer to get a policy last November as a new customer and would have been taken on with open arms. Unfortunately i stuck with the insurer we have used for years and have probably paid well over £30k in premiums now. So you would have no pay out on the Lambo back then as the conviction was still vaild???? Lucky you did'nt bump it. Hope you win OP !!!
|
|
