Insurance voided from inception - Am I up the creek?
Discussion
Hi all,
I'm hoping for some advice from insurance people/experts, any all help/advice massively appreciated
Long story short, both of my cars were smashed into in the middle of the night whilst I was alseep, the driver of the third pary vehicle causing the incident did the honourable thing and fled
. The Police are investigating and the suspect (who was insured to drive the vehicle) is being interviewed/arreseted for this offence.
More details here.
The insurance company have (I believe) not paid out for the third parties vehicle (it was reported stolen....
), but the reported theft was treated as "suspicioius" by the Police (hence the 6 month investigation) and it has subsequently come to light that material facts were not disclosed at the point of taking out the insurance.
If the 3rd party insurere was to "void the policy from inception" (on the basis of failing to disclose material facts) does this leave me paddling up the creek with no paddle? Can they really wash their hands of all liability/responsibility in these circumstances? Does it make any difference that this has only come to light AFTER the incidents above?
Does it make any difference if the suspect is convicted criminally or via civil process?
Thanks very much Stats
I'm hoping for some advice from insurance people/experts, any all help/advice massively appreciated
Long story short, both of my cars were smashed into in the middle of the night whilst I was alseep, the driver of the third pary vehicle causing the incident did the honourable thing and fled
. The Police are investigating and the suspect (who was insured to drive the vehicle) is being interviewed/arreseted for this offence.More details here.
The insurance company have (I believe) not paid out for the third parties vehicle (it was reported stolen....
), but the reported theft was treated as "suspicioius" by the Police (hence the 6 month investigation) and it has subsequently come to light that material facts were not disclosed at the point of taking out the insurance. If the 3rd party insurere was to "void the policy from inception" (on the basis of failing to disclose material facts) does this leave me paddling up the creek with no paddle? Can they really wash their hands of all liability/responsibility in these circumstances? Does it make any difference that this has only come to light AFTER the incidents above?
Does it make any difference if the suspect is convicted criminally or via civil process?
Thanks very much Stats
Hi, thanks for speedy replies 
I'm looking up 'RTA insurer' and 'Article 75 insurer' now... but as I'm not a legal type I'm more than a little
The Police talked of 'nummerous' offences so I'm guessing the insurance would have been refused rather than just have been a bit more expensive. While this is only a guess its the worst case (I think) so happy to go with it as most things seem to be going down that path with this issue.
Stats
ETA: My vehicles both correctly insured for on road storage thankfully
I'm looking up 'RTA insurer' and 'Article 75 insurer' now... but as I'm not a legal type I'm more than a little
The Police talked of 'nummerous' offences so I'm guessing the insurance would have been refused rather than just have been a bit more expensive. While this is only a guess its the worst case (I think) so happy to go with it as most things seem to be going down that path with this issue.
Stats
ETA: My vehicles both correctly insured for on road storage thankfully
Edited by Stats2909 on Wednesday 3rd April 12:38
Thanks for responding, please see below. I hope it's clearer.
IF the named driver on the third parties insurance is shown to have been driving (or the third party insurer fails to prove that he wasn't) AND the third party insurers do decided to void the policy from inception where does that leave me? Will they (the third parties insurers) be required to pay MY claim under the provisions of the RTA 1988 (assuming it's fair/reasonable etc)?
Other than the suspected individual there is no-one else being considered as responsible for the accident.
LoonR1 said:
Not sure in understand the question.
Apologies - please bare with me, I'm not an insurance expert, I'm just trying to understand what's going on with this and where it leaves me!
Why do you think it will be cancelled from inception?
Because that this is what the insurance appointed legal advisors, the police and the accident management company are all telling me is the likely outcome based on what they now know to be true following the involvement of the police. This new information has brought to light that the the suspected driver (a named driver on the policy) had "numerous" convictions that were not declared when the policy was taken out that would, in all likelihood, not simply have pushed the cost of the policy up.
Why isn't this with your insurers to resolve?
It is - it's been dragging for almost 6 months whilst they try to work with an awkward third party insurance company, an awkward suspect and trying conditions with very limited access to the suspect. I'm simply trying to understand what is going on, rather than being left in the dark for weeks/months on end.
Was the other driver named on that policy? Or was it stolen?
The suspected driver is a named driver on the abandoned vehicles insurance. They are however reporting the vehicle as stolen but they are reporting it as stolen. No one believes this, in particular the Police.
So to simplify/reword, the question is....Apologies - please bare with me, I'm not an insurance expert, I'm just trying to understand what's going on with this and where it leaves me!
Why do you think it will be cancelled from inception?
Because that this is what the insurance appointed legal advisors, the police and the accident management company are all telling me is the likely outcome based on what they now know to be true following the involvement of the police. This new information has brought to light that the the suspected driver (a named driver on the policy) had "numerous" convictions that were not declared when the policy was taken out that would, in all likelihood, not simply have pushed the cost of the policy up.
Why isn't this with your insurers to resolve?
It is - it's been dragging for almost 6 months whilst they try to work with an awkward third party insurance company, an awkward suspect and trying conditions with very limited access to the suspect. I'm simply trying to understand what is going on, rather than being left in the dark for weeks/months on end.
Was the other driver named on that policy? Or was it stolen?
The suspected driver is a named driver on the abandoned vehicles insurance. They are however reporting the vehicle as stolen but they are reporting it as stolen. No one believes this, in particular the Police.
IF the named driver on the third parties insurance is shown to have been driving (or the third party insurer fails to prove that he wasn't) AND the third party insurers do decided to void the policy from inception where does that leave me? Will they (the third parties insurers) be required to pay MY claim under the provisions of the RTA 1988 (assuming it's fair/reasonable etc)?
Other than the suspected individual there is no-one else being considered as responsible for the accident.
The AMC was the one appointed by the insurers... I'm hoping this is a good thing (I find it hard to see how it can't be!) TP insurer is not part of Admiral Group no... may I ask why?
When you say a "really serious one" do you mean in term of monetary value?
Should the TP insurer be granted "article 75" status will they still be liable, despite the fact I have my own insurance? I can't make that out from what I'm reading.
Thanks for your advice, after 6 months it's clear that this isn't going to be quick. I keep getting told my case is very unusual so I'm preparing for 6 months to be just the beginning!
When you say a "really serious one" do you mean in term of monetary value?
Should the TP insurer be granted "article 75" status will they still be liable, despite the fact I have my own insurance? I can't make that out from what I'm reading.
Thanks for your advice, after 6 months it's clear that this isn't going to be quick. I keep getting told my case is very unusual so I'm preparing for 6 months to be just the beginning!
Does who I'm insured with have much of an influence on the likely outcome? I can see why the TP insurer might, but less clear on mine (apologies if I'm missing the obvious).
Your comment/observation with regards to awkwardness is possibly fair, although from what I am told the TP insurer aren't exactly falling over themselves to resolve this.
Thanks for the link/info looking into it now....
Your comment/observation with regards to awkwardness is possibly fair, although from what I am told the TP insurer aren't exactly falling over themselves to resolve this.
Thanks for the link/info looking into it now....
My insurers are Groupama and KGM and after some reading no, it's definitely not a big one!
It is 100% non fault, I was completely unaware until the Police woke me with the news. I'm concerned about NCD, premiums and to some extent justice.
After 6 months it just feels like everytime I get an update there is a new twist that leaves me confused as to likely outcomes... this is just the latest. I suspect I will just need to get used to the fact that is probably not going to be sorted in the next 6 months either
It is 100% non fault, I was completely unaware until the Police woke me with the news. I'm concerned about NCD, premiums and to some extent justice.
After 6 months it just feels like everytime I get an update there is a new twist that leaves me confused as to likely outcomes... this is just the latest. I suspect I will just need to get used to the fact that is probably not going to be sorted in the next 6 months either
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff