Cant this Insurer be made to pay?!?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

daz3210 said:

I said previously, its a contract, which can include whatever a party agrees to. Of course you have put forward the argument of the ABI, which may/may not have a bearing on what you can agree with an insurer.

At last, we seem to be making some progress. Not a lot, but some.

So what if I told you that the ABI have guidelines which strictly prohibit an insurer putting such clauses in the contract. Would you then accept that insurers cannot go after the policyholder for tp damages paid in the case highlighed in the OP?

[LoonR1]

daz3210 said:

How would a clause relating to drink driving also cover speeding?

Incidentally, I have a friend who is a non drinker. When he was 21 he got a discount for being so. Presumably, if it were to have been found he in fact was a drinker, his insurance could have been voided.

Edited by daz3210 on Monday 8th October 15:21

Only the damage to his own vehicle. He'd also have been asked to pay back the discount.

[LoonR1]

Can anyone see my comments on this thread?

I'd have thought my answers would've stopped this discussion.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LoonR1 said:

Can anyone see my comments on this thread?

I'd have thought my answers would've stopped this discussion.

You've made three. I've made a few more than that. I'll leave it to you from here on it, I'm throwing in the towel!

[Noger]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

As well as legal minimums, insurers also have to work in accordance with the ABI, in order to trade lawfully in the UK. The ABI say in order to transact insutrance in the UK, you must do this, must do that, must do the other. The ABI tell insurers in what circumstances they can decline claims, or in the case of motor, pay the tp and then claim it back from the policyholder.

And so I'll say it again for the hard of listening. An insurance company cannot put a clause in it's policy to claim back from policyholder tp costs for being drunk. Bacause it's in breach of the ABI and they would be trading illegally. Do you not get it? It isn't rocket surgery!

Re the bond with the DTI, currently £500K, that is a complete red herring because in those cases the insurer isn't paying the tp anyway, the client is.

The ABI issues guidelines, and not everyone is a member anyway. It is a mixture of statutory and common law that governs insurance. Even the FSA ICOBS are not "law" as such.

You appear to be confusing the ABI with the MIB, which an insurer must be a member of to write Motor Business.

In terms of "Drink and drugs" clauses, they are fairly common. Elephant have one, and include this as a "significant exclusion" as stated in ICOBS8.

Breach of warranty is something you appear to be missing as well, it is another way to void a policy. Although these clauses are more likely to be seen as "conditions precedent" on cover. So the policy isn't voidable (although it could be written that way) but the claim is repudiated as the cover won't attach.

The RTA S151 will allow, where a judgement has been reached, for the insurer to recover from the Insured in such cases. But it is very rare.

[streaky]

hora said:

moreflaps said:

Futuramic said:

Let's use a random figure of £5 tax for 20 cigarettes. If I smoke three packs a week then I contribute £15. Over a year that becomes £780. I have been smoking for 7 years now so have already given, approximately, £5,460. If I carry on at the same rate for another forty years I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.

Tobacco revenue in the Uk is massive -its 12 BILLION pounds per year. The _whole_ NHS costs 100 billion so I'd say smokers are certainly paying more than their fair share...

Smokers always always find positives to reinforce denial. I was the same. Phillip Morris OWNED and I danced to his product.

Ironic, is it not, that three of the men who appeared in the Marlboro "cowboy" advertisements died of lung cancer.

Streaky