|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
78 months
|
|
|
blindswelledrat
18,950 posts
101 months
|
Keep us posted as to the outcome. Im fascinated.
|
|
|
Soovy
31,963 posts
140 months
|
mattt7 said: An RS6 Jesus T1ttyf ccking Christ.
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
78 months
|
ATG, no as their criteria is to disclose convictions up to 5 years. So when asked by one of their customer service representatives when i took out the latest policy whether myself or any named drivers had had any convictions within the last 5 years i said NO, as my conviction was 6 years ago at that point.
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
78 months
|
Soovy, yes tell me about it!!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Soovy
31,963 posts
140 months
|
mattt7 said: Soovy, yes tell me about it!! You have my sympathy. Over a decade ago I had a policy voided, and it cost me thirty grand. PM Noger for advice, but I have to say ont he face of it this doesn't look good. Did you cause any daamge or injury to a third party (this is a bigger problem).
|
|
|
ATG
12,033 posts
141 months
|
mattt7 said: ATG, no as their criteria is to disclose convictions up to 5 years. So when asked by one of their customer service representatives when i took out the lates policy whether myself or any named drivers had had any convictions within the last 5 years i said NO, as my conviction was 6 years ago at that point. Ah. In that case I see what Noger means.
|
|
|
DavidHM
1,983 posts
69 months
|
Noger said: Firstly, as a piece of friendly advice, what you *should* be doing is working out what you need to do to sort this out, rather than (egged on by others who having nothing to lose) worrying about what may or may not have happened during the renewal gap. The insurer seem to be being pretty fair, and at least talking rather than just (as they are allowed to do) just writing to you and telling you.
Secondly, again friendly advice, you need to be clear about what you (both) did, or didn't do when you took out the previous policy in terms of misrepresentation. The FOS as absolutely clear on this when it comes to DD convictions, their view is that all drivers would consider the conviction and disqualification highly significant and would realise they had to disclose this when renewing their insurance. If your wife "can't remember" and then *you* didn't check, that looks like reckless misrepresentation. They will claim that you simply didn't care what details your wife entered. Policy void, and that isn't good as I am sure you are aware.
The key to that one would be to show that the misrepresentation was inadvertent, maybe by showing that you included it on all previous years details.
So....as to whether a potential avoidance has an effect on the renewal.
The 2nd part of misrepresentation (other than not telling the truth) is inducement, and one of the things you are inducing the Insurer to do is take on a policy on particular terms (and terms other than just premium). The terms of a renewal are assumed to be the same as the previous term, unless explicitly stated otherwise. So the insurer may be saying that they would have given you different terms had you been a new customer rather than a renewing one.
So, from a legal perspective, they are probably entirely right and have the right to avoid.
However, as this is a consumer policy, you have various safeguards. The FOS say (and this will be written into statute in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill probably next year) that the remedy for inducement into policy terms is to re-write the policy on the different terms, not to make it void.
Had you had the Total Loss in the last policy year, I would suggest you would be in for quite a fight, but in this case it doesn't seem fair. The misrepresentation didn't induce the insurer into accepting a risk they would not have otherwise done (we assume, hard to imagine they would not have taken you as a new risk ?).
So, where to direct your attention ? Either showing the original misrepresentation wasn't reckless, or accepting that you made a mistake there and now trying to show lack of inducement at renewal. Probably both, as you don't want the previous year cancelled really.
This assumes they are not considering this fraud, which would be a different game. If you have been hiding your conviction from insurers for the last 6 years...you need a Solicitor not PH. Not that I think you have, but need to cover that one off too !
I think you need to wait and see how it plays out, it depends on the prior year decision to void or not. First question is - what was the sentence imposed on the drink driving conviction? Was it just a fine, points and a ban or was it something else? Assuming the formmer, the conviction was spent after five years and the below applies. Otherwise the conviction may still not be spent and therefore things are a lot worse for the OP. Agreed that there might be fraud implications for the previous policies ... however the inducement argument for voiding the policy is very weak IMO. Under RHA1974 a spent conviction is treated as if it never happened by the Courts in interpreting a contract. So if the insurer is arguing that they offered the renewal on the basis that the policyholder had five years conviction free in 2010, plus another one on renewal, and would not have offered had they known it was really only five years... they don't have a leg to stand on because the conviction, in law, never happened. In any event (it's not quite clear to me) the relevant policy may not be a renewal, but a new policy taken out with an insurer who didn't know about the prior conviciton, at which point the inducement argument not only falls short but doesn't get off the ground.
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,916 posts
114 months
|
Noger said: However, as this is a consumer policy, you have various safeguards. The FOS say (and this will be written into statute in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill probably next year) that the remedy for inducement into policy terms is to re-write the policy on the different terms, not to make it void. I've seen a similar thing (although I think for speeding, not drink driving) and all the insurer did was demand the extra premium. Someone asked about this the other day, saying if that's the standard approach, you might as well not declare convictions as it seems you can simply pay the extra if you need to claim!
|
|
|
ZOLLAR
16,227 posts
42 months
|
Soovy said: Listen to Noger - he knows what he's talking about. Seriously. This.
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
78 months
|
DavidHm, it a DR10, fine, points and a ban. Unfortunately i went with the same insurance company hence this is now an issue. If i'd taken out a completely new policy with someone else, all of this would be irrelevent. As my old policy wasn't automatically renewed on the renewal date, but 10 days later after getting some other quotes from competitors etc, and having to go through every single question with a customer service representative, i thought that perhaps the new policy would not be considered a renewal. However it's unfortunately not looking that way.
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,916 posts
114 months
|
DavidHM said:
Under RHA1974 a spent conviction is treated as if it never happened by the Courts in interpreting a contract. So if the insurer is arguing that they offered the renewal on the basis that the policyholder had five years conviction free in 2010, plus another one on renewal, and would not have offered had they known it was really only five years... they don't have a leg to stand on because the conviction, in law, never happened.
The OP seems to have been able to check the previous year's premium would have been £3-400 more if the insurer had been aware of his conviction. He's fortunate that he didn't pick an insurer who wouldn't cover convicted drink drivers as they could argue that the original contract would never have existed if they'd been made aware.
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Deva Link said: Noger said: However, as this is a consumer policy, you have various safeguards. The FOS say (and this will be written into statute in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill probably next year) that the remedy for inducement into policy terms is to re-write the policy on the different terms, not to make it void. I've seen a similar thing (although I think for speeding, not drink driving) and all the insurer did was demand the extra premium. Someone asked about this the other day, saying if that's the standard approach, you might as well not declare convictions as it seems you can simply pay the extra if you need to claim! And I said that will all change sometime in the next year or so, and the payout will be proportional to the unpaid/paid premium. So the OP underpaid by £300, his loss (in future) won't be £300, it will be £300/600 *100% * The cost of an RS6 (assuming the premium should have been £600).
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
78 months
|
Noger but in my case where the non disclosure was 3 policies ago and the accident happened under a policy with all the correct information. And finally that they would have taken me on us a new customer at this stage for the same price as my renewal would that still be the case? If my accident had happened in 2010 under the policy they are referring to and was still within the 5 year conviction period i can understand that it applies.
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Deva Link said: DavidHM said:
Under RHA1974 a spent conviction is treated as if it never happened by the Courts in interpreting a contract. So if the insurer is arguing that they offered the renewal on the basis that the policyholder had five years conviction free in 2010, plus another one on renewal, and would not have offered had they known it was really only five years... they don't have a leg to stand on because the conviction, in law, never happened.
The OP seems to have been able to check the previous year's premium would have been £3-400 more if the insurer had been aware of his conviction. He's fortunate that he didn't pick an insurer who wouldn't cover convicted drink drivers as they could argue that the original contract would never have existed if they'd been made aware. Yes, as long as they have not changed their underwriting criteria, this would appear to be the crux. They would have insured the OP but on different terms. They cannot then claim inducement (as per Pan Atlantic v Pine Top they must show that *they* on balance would not have accepted the risk - which differs from the statutory position). They should charge extra, not avoid.
|
|
|
mattt7
Original Poster
67 posts
78 months
|
i forgot to mention that the policy that was taken out in March 2010 was just on a Landrover Freelander, i acquired the RS6 in December 2010 with 1 month to run on that policy. Does that make any difference. I guess if they were to calculate an extra premium owing for the non diclosure it would have to be based on the car that the policy as taken out against, which is a Freelander?
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,916 posts
114 months
|
mattt7 said: As my old policy wasn't automatically renewed on the renewal date, but 10 days later after getting some other quotes from competitors etc, and having to go through every single question with a customer service representative, i thought that perhaps the new policy would not be considered a renewal. However it's unfortunately not looking that way. I think the fact that that happened could be useful for you as it was clear at the time of the accident that the policy was operating correctly. You could even try arguing that you thought it was a brand-new policy, although this tends to make it look more as if the earlier ommission was deliberate. You keep talking about 'policies' as if all 3 were separate. They're not - you've had one policy and it's been renewed twice.
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
mattt7 said: i forgot to mention that the policy that was taken out in March 2010 was just on a Landrover Freelander, i acquired the RS6 in December 2010 with 1 month to run on that policy. Does that make any difference. I guess if they were to calculate an extra premium owing for the non diclosure it would have to be based on the car that the policy as taken out against, which is a Freelander? And the increase in premium due to the change of vehicle too.
|
|
|
streaky
18,232 posts
118 months
|
mattt7 said: Just checked, same end date as the renewal ... That suggests you have only 356 days cover in 2012 for the price of a full year. I'd ask for the expiry date to be increased to reflect a full year's cover from the start. Streaky
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,916 posts
114 months
|
streaky said: That suggests you have only 356 days cover in 2012 for the price of a full year. I'd ask for the expiry date to be increased to reflect a full year's cover from the start.
Streaky They'll say they considered themselves to be at risk during that period. The OP seems to have 10month policies, by the way.
|
|
