insurance question
Discussion
Hi all,
Opinions of the ph collective (especially Loon if you are on) please.
My wife's best best friend has been utterly stupid and I have been charged with finding the most painless route through the minefield.
She allowed her car insurance to auto renew earlier this year and didn't declare an offence (driving on phone) and the inevitable has happened, she has had an at fault accident this evening.
I have indicated that best case is that she will pay the difference in premium that this endorsement would have attracted and worst case insurance would have been refused and will be canceled from point of inception.
Am I correct? Which is most likely? Is there an in between? What are the consequences of each?
Lots of questions I know, but you guys are a fountain of knowledge and I salute you all.
Thanks
Mac
Opinions of the ph collective (especially Loon if you are on) please.
My wife's best best friend has been utterly stupid and I have been charged with finding the most painless route through the minefield.
She allowed her car insurance to auto renew earlier this year and didn't declare an offence (driving on phone) and the inevitable has happened, she has had an at fault accident this evening.
I have indicated that best case is that she will pay the difference in premium that this endorsement would have attracted and worst case insurance would have been refused and will be canceled from point of inception.
Am I correct? Which is most likely? Is there an in between? What are the consequences of each?
Lots of questions I know, but you guys are a fountain of knowledge and I salute you all.
Thanks
Mac
Edited by Madmac70 on Wednesday 16th July 19:28
I would have passed the same opinion. Providing that the insurer would honestly not have refused to insure her, then she will be liable for the difference between the premium paid and the higher premium.
If she is insured with 'No Phone Convictions Insurance Limited' then she may be in trouble, but I doubt that many will have refused to quote for this.
R1Loon will know better than I, but I believe that this was a code of practice which was being made compulsory at some point. Whether this point has passed yet I cannot say.
If she is insured with 'No Phone Convictions Insurance Limited' then she may be in trouble, but I doubt that many will have refused to quote for this.
R1Loon will know better than I, but I believe that this was a code of practice which was being made compulsory at some point. Whether this point has passed yet I cannot say.
It depends really.
If her car is written off they may deal on a proportional settlement i.e. Without the endorsement disclosed she has only paid 75% of the true premium so the insurer may only pay out 75% of the value of her car.
If the car is repairable it's likely she will only pay a difference in premium.
As mentioned due to changes last year if the insurer would have covered the risk had they known of the endorsement then they can't void cover.
Driving whilst using a phone is a CU80 it's extremely unlikely the insurer wouldn't have covered it so one of the above two scenarios will happen.
If her car is written off they may deal on a proportional settlement i.e. Without the endorsement disclosed she has only paid 75% of the true premium so the insurer may only pay out 75% of the value of her car.
If the car is repairable it's likely she will only pay a difference in premium.
As mentioned due to changes last year if the insurer would have covered the risk had they known of the endorsement then they can't void cover.
Driving whilst using a phone is a CU80 it's extremely unlikely the insurer wouldn't have covered it so one of the above two scenarios will happen.
What Zollar said.
If they would've refused cover though, then she's facing a potential world of pain. Firstly her own car will. It be covered at all. The third party's losses will be covered but the insurer may choose to pursue her for them, although that's pretty unlikely unless she's loaded.
Have to say that it's amazing how many people "forget" convictions at renewal, especially if it pushes the price up quite a bit.
If they would've refused cover though, then she's facing a potential world of pain. Firstly her own car will. It be covered at all. The third party's losses will be covered but the insurer may choose to pursue her for them, although that's pretty unlikely unless she's loaded.
Have to say that it's amazing how many people "forget" convictions at renewal, especially if it pushes the price up quite a bit.
So she had an accident this evening and straight away she remembered she hadn't disclosed a conviction at last renewal. Sounds to me like she knew damn well she hadn't disclosed it and had no intention of doing so. But the claim has got her worried.
But Loon & Zollar are spot on re the ramifications.
But Loon & Zollar are spot on re the ramifications.
Hi all,
It is much worse than it originally appeared. The stupid woman declared the endorsement to her previous insurer at renewal and saw a spike in the premium, then went elsewhere and didn't declare it. After a year at renewal time still hid the fact. Worse still, her other half, a named driver, received three stars for speeding before the renewal and she didn't declare that either.
I know that we usually think of the insurance industry as a bunch of crooks but is it any wonder when there are muppets like this. I think the gene pool needs more chlorine.
Mac
It is much worse than it originally appeared. The stupid woman declared the endorsement to her previous insurer at renewal and saw a spike in the premium, then went elsewhere and didn't declare it. After a year at renewal time still hid the fact. Worse still, her other half, a named driver, received three stars for speeding before the renewal and she didn't declare that either.
I know that we usually think of the insurance industry as a bunch of crooks but is it any wonder when there are muppets like this. I think the gene pool needs more chlorine.
Mac
Edited by Madmac70 on Thursday 17th July 04:44
As horrible as it sounds people like this shouldn't be given the luxury of just paying the difference.
If you walked out of a shop having paid for 2 items but with an extra 2 stashed in your pocket it's not like you'd be afforded the opportunity to pay the difference. Maybe that's a bad analogy, I dunno.
If you walked out of a shop having paid for 2 items but with an extra 2 stashed in your pocket it's not like you'd be afforded the opportunity to pay the difference. Maybe that's a bad analogy, I dunno.
Madmac70 said:
Hi all,
It is much worse than it originally appeared. The stupid woman declared the endorsement to her previous insurer at renewal and saw a spike in the premium, then went elsewhere and didn't declare it. After a year at renewal time still hid the fact. Worse still, her other half, a named driver, received three stars for speeding before the renewal and she didn't declare that either.
I know that we usually think of the insurance industry as a bunch of crooks but is it any wonder when there are muppets like this. I think the gene pool needs more chlorine.
Mac
QED on the use of inverted commas for her "forgetting" in my earlier posts. That's normally the sort of comment where the indignant and self righteous start to hurl abuse in my direction. It is much worse than it originally appeared. The stupid woman declared the endorsement to her previous insurer at renewal and saw a spike in the premium, then went elsewhere and didn't declare it. After a year at renewal time still hid the fact. Worse still, her other half, a named driver, received three stars for speeding before the renewal and she didn't declare that either.
I know that we usually think of the insurance industry as a bunch of crooks but is it any wonder when there are muppets like this. I think the gene pool needs more chlorine.
Mac
Edited by Madmac70 on Thursday 17th July 04:44
Durzel said:
As horrible as it sounds people like this shouldn't be given the luxury of just paying the difference.
If you walked out of a shop having paid for 2 items but with an extra 2 stashed in your pocket it's not like you'd be afforded the opportunity to pay the difference. Maybe that's a bad analogy, I dunno.
You probably would be offered the opportunity to pay for the goods before any action was taken. I agree with you sentiments though. If you walked out of a shop having paid for 2 items but with an extra 2 stashed in your pocket it's not like you'd be afforded the opportunity to pay the difference. Maybe that's a bad analogy, I dunno.
What the Consumer Insurance Act allows for now is where there has been a deliberate misrepresentation then the insurer can reduce the payout for your part of the claim. Ut the same amount that you underpaid by. As this doesn't apply to any TP element, the. It's not a big win for the insurer. There's also difficulty over cost of repairs where discounts have been negotiated and bulk deal purchases of parts & materials and so on
Snowboy said:
Based on the second part of the story; is she getting into Fraud territory?
She's well and truly in that territory, but there are several degrees of fraud and differing solutions to outcomes. It's nowhere near as simple as people think for an insurer to simply cancel a policy after a claim. LoonR1 said:
What the Consumer Insurance Act allows for now is where there has been a deliberate misrepresentation then the insurer can reduce the payout for your part of the claim. Ut the same amount that you underpaid by.
Thought that applied to careless representations (eg genuinely forgetting to inform insurers of a change at renewal)? In the case of deliberate misrepresentations the CIA still allows insurers to void the contract and refuse claims entirely ( link) though obviously in the case of motor insurance that's complicated by the fact that the insurer still has third party liabilities which it can't easily avoid.Aretnap said:
Thought that applied to careless representations (eg genuinely forgetting to inform insurers of a change at renewal)? In the case of deliberate misrepresentations the CIA still allows insurers to void the contract and refuse claims entirely ( link) though obviously in the case of motor insurance that's complicated by the fact that the insurer still has third party liabilities which it can't easily avoid.
We can void the contract, but to all intents and purposes it is still there as we have to indemnify the third parties. We can't just cancel a policy and walk away, that is a really difficult thing to do. As with all of this choice of words to describe actions are key to avoid confusion. Hold on, daft partial related comment coming.
I thought or At least would assume that a database would exist that the Police, Relevant court charge/successful prosecutions, DVLA and MID would have access to before questions or declarations had to be made?. Sort of an up to date joint database that would flag up all and any convictions before allowing the insurance renewal?.
Seems like an idea with common sense. Of course I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about and it could go against data protection or it may exist.
Or if it doesn't exist, is it because the income from "forgetful" motorists would disappear and it would cost stupid amounts to provide and keep updated?.
Sorry for all of my nonsense.
I thought or At least would assume that a database would exist that the Police, Relevant court charge/successful prosecutions, DVLA and MID would have access to before questions or declarations had to be made?. Sort of an up to date joint database that would flag up all and any convictions before allowing the insurance renewal?.
Seems like an idea with common sense. Of course I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about and it could go against data protection or it may exist.
Or if it doesn't exist, is it because the income from "forgetful" motorists would disappear and it would cost stupid amounts to provide and keep updated?.
Sorry for all of my nonsense.
As you have been charged with helping her my suggestion to you would be that you strongly advise she pays for professional advice ( or uses her legal cover if she "forgot to un-tick that box" ) rather than trying to sort it out on the cheap by asking PHers - as doing it on the cheap is what got her here in the first place.
The less you have to do with this probable negative outcome, the less you will get slagged off for not sorting it so your wife's best friend gets away with a new car and a bunch of flowers form the insurance company.
A simple
"Sorry, I'm ok with the simple stuff, but I really don't know enough about this to be any help, you're better off speaking to a professional, but if you want to talk to someone about what they recommend then I'm more than happy to do that"
may get you off the hook.
The less you have to do with this probable negative outcome, the less you will get slagged off for not sorting it so your wife's best friend gets away with a new car and a bunch of flowers form the insurance company.
A simple
"Sorry, I'm ok with the simple stuff, but I really don't know enough about this to be any help, you're better off speaking to a professional, but if you want to talk to someone about what they recommend then I'm more than happy to do that"
may get you off the hook.
LoonR1 said:
It's coming of sorts. Insurers will have access to the DVLA records, but at a cost, integrating IT solutions is a bloody expensive task and doing so across many other IT platforms just adds to the complications.
...and people moan about it as "breaching their privacy" and similar ballcocks.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff