Shocking case of claim refusal
Discussion
VSKeith said:
Sheepshanks said:
I find it annoying that firms' are resolute about these matters - then cave when the press get involved, even when they have the FOS's support.
I do think that if insurers are going to refuse to settle claims in circumstances that could catch many customers out, then they should do more to ensure customers understand the kind of things that constitute a modification.
^ThisI do think that if insurers are going to refuse to settle claims in circumstances that could catch many customers out, then they should do more to ensure customers understand the kind of things that constitute a modification.
Having an aftermarket towbar is a common thing. Not covering vehicles with them at all seems to be quite unusual.
Simply asking whether the customer's vehicle is modified, knowing that you won't cover something that is not likely to be deemed a modification by many customers is negligent at best, and more likely extremely sharp practice.
The potential consequences for the customer are very serious and they should be making it very clear in the modification disclosure process that they deem an aftermarket towbar to be a modification and they don't cover vehicles fitted with them.
Glenn63 said:
But then they won’t get all the extra premiums from people as they’ll go elsewhere. Keep it confusing and uncertain, charge the premiums and if there’s a claim refuse it anyway, making money for nothing.
You do know that in a case like this if they decline the claim on the basis of saying they never would have accepted the risk at all had they known the truth, then all premiums paid since inception have to be refunded in full. The policy is made null and void ab initio, so in legal terms it never existed. So they cannot keep the premiums. They might have been on cover for 5 years, issued 5 years worth of paperwork, had the claim submitted, sent countless emails, staff have spent hours on the claim, attended the ombudsman hearing, etc etc, only to have to repay every penny they ever collected from the customer. So how does your elaborate conspiracy theory stand up now?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Glenn63 said:
But then they won’t get all the extra premiums from people as they’ll go elsewhere. Keep it confusing and uncertain, charge the premiums and if there’s a claim refuse it anyway, making money for nothing.
You do know that in a case like this if they decline the claim on the basis of saying they never would have accepted the risk at all had they known the truth, then all premiums paid since inception have to be refunded in full. The policy is made null and void ab initio, so in legal terms it never existed. So they cannot keep the premiums. They might have been on cover for 5 years, issued 5 years worth of paperwork, had the claim submitted, sent countless emails, staff have spent hours on the claim, attended the ombudsman hearing, etc etc, only to have to repay every penny they ever collected from the customer. So how does your elaborate conspiracy theory stand up now?
RicksAlfas said:
My car has a factory fitted towbar. When you go through Confused.com it says "we don't consider a tow bar needs declaring, but your chosen insurer may do" which makes the whole thing... confusing! 
They should really either have a tick box for it, or tell the insurers that if they wish to gain business from being listed on the site, then they have to accept towbar as not needing declaration.People use sites like this because they want to get it sorted without having to muck about with this stuff individually.
InitialDave said:
RicksAlfas said:
My car has a factory fitted towbar. When you go through Confused.com it says "we don't consider a tow bar needs declaring, but your chosen insurer may do" which makes the whole thing... confusing!
They should really either have a tick box for it, or tell the insurers that if they wish to gain business from being listed on the site, then they have to accept towbar as not needing declaration.People use sites like this because they want to get it sorted without having to muck about with this stuff individually.
E-bmw said:
But then when you find your "best deal" you are normally directed to the actual insurers website & get the full relevant info available to you to check before you buy, you do check it don't you?
You do. But it's not always easy to then modify the quote to add a towbar as it assumes the info from the comparison site is correct.It should be built in at the start. And it also shouldn't be such a grey area as to whether it needs declaring or not!
E-bmw said:
But then when you find your "best deal" you are normally directed to the actual insurers website & get the full relevant info available to you to check before you buy, you do check it don't you?
Generally, yes, but it shouldn't be necessary.A comparison site should ask all the questions necessary to ensure they are putting forward quotes from companies who will provide cover, and if someone answers those questions truthfully, they shouldn't need to dig into minutia to find potential snags.
The consumer is not an expert, and the service provider (who is) should ask them for anything they need to know in a way that they can understand.
If a large number of people don't regard, for example, tow bars, as a modification, that gap once identified needs to be closed by stating if they are, and if so, explicitly asking if you have one.
The reason I find this example frustrating is because it isn't where someone's blatantly tried to play dumb or be dishonest, it's the kind of thing where so many people would honestly believe they had answered everything truthfully because they genuinely believed that was the correct answer to put.
deadtom said:
I also checked whether the winter tyres that are fitted count as a modification, but they don't appear on the fairly exhaustive list, so I have not declared them.
I don’t bother declaring winter tyres anymore - they’re tyres. They’re E marked etc. they’re the right size. They comply with the law all year round and pass the MOT. I would however support inscos asking of your fitting ditchfinders (perhaps tyres from a manufacturer not on a list) - of all the things that have a bearing on safety and accidents and altering a cars behaviour these are right on up there, yet they don’t care! But they’ll charge you more for fitting some stickers!
Mars said:
I've just had to cancel my Allianz insurance on the basis that I need a towbar and they will not continue to insure my car if I fit one - bit weird but... whatever. The irritation is that this is classed as a cancellation and therefore I'm subject to a £40 cancellation fee. Oh well, it's done now.
Dunno if it has changed since, but the FAQs on their website say they cover tow bars:https://www.allianz.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/...
"Are modifications covered?
...
We also cover air conditioning, fog lights, parking sensors and tow bars."
Counter to all this, and it was 6 or so years ago, but my old 3 series was written off on the M25 being rear-ended - then knocked into the front so insurers just seemed to split the liability. I now have a dashcam, as was miffed to be put in the blame.
Anyway, I'd fitted a towbar, and when offered the payout I'd mentioned that the wheels had been refurbed, brand new tyres and a towbar. The chap gave me a little more cash for the wheels and tyres, but said as I'd not declared the towbar he couldn't increase the payout because of that... That was eSure, who are generally the cheaper end of the scale, so seemed reasonable to me.
Anyway, I'd fitted a towbar, and when offered the payout I'd mentioned that the wheels had been refurbed, brand new tyres and a towbar. The chap gave me a little more cash for the wheels and tyres, but said as I'd not declared the towbar he couldn't increase the payout because of that... That was eSure, who are generally the cheaper end of the scale, so seemed reasonable to me.
Dog Star said:
I don’t bother declaring winter tyres anymore - they’re tyres. They’re E marked etc. they’re the right size. They comply with the law all year round and pass the MOT.
I would however support inscos asking of your fitting ditchfinders (perhaps tyres from a manufacturer not on a list) - of all the things that have a bearing on safety and accidents and altering a cars behaviour these are right on up there, yet they don’t care! But they’ll charge you more for fitting some stickers!
People who use winter tyres are sometimes regarded as higher risk, because they go out in winter conditions and crash, when sensible people leave their car in the drive.I would however support inscos asking of your fitting ditchfinders (perhaps tyres from a manufacturer not on a list) - of all the things that have a bearing on safety and accidents and altering a cars behaviour these are right on up there, yet they don’t care! But they’ll charge you more for fitting some stickers!
Winter tyres also often have relatively poor wet grip in Summer.
I've not seen any cheap tyres available which are not just a e-marked as winter tyres.
I suspect cheap tyres are somewhat better than the cheap tyres of 20+ years ago, I have my prejudices about tyres too, based on economy motoring/motorcycling since the 80s when Chinese and Eastern Bloc tyres were often not very good
I have a towbar, which I notified to my insurer, they said they needed to be notified but it didn't change the premium.
They said my all-season tyres were not a mod.
Underwriters have access to vast amounts of claim stats.
Things like stickers tell them more about the nut behind the wheel?
InitialDave said:
E-bmw said:
But then when you find your "best deal" you are normally directed to the actual insurers website & get the full relevant info available to you to check before you buy, you do check it don't you?
Generally, yes, but it shouldn't be necessary.A comparison site should ask all the questions necessary to ensure they are putting forward quotes from companies who will provide cover, and if someone answers those questions truthfully, they shouldn't need to dig into minutia to find potential snags.
The consumer is not an expert, and the service provider (who is) should ask them for anything they need to know in a way that they can understand.
If a large number of people don't regard, for example, tow bars, as a modification, that gap once identified needs to be closed by stating if they are, and if so, explicitly asking if you have one.
The reason I find this example frustrating is because it isn't where someone's blatantly tried to play dumb or be dishonest, it's the kind of thing where so many people would honestly believe they had answered everything truthfully because they genuinely believed that was the correct answer to put.
If a comparison site asked EVERYTHING that differs from one company to another it wouldn't be worth using them when the only reason to use them is to compare apples with apples etc.
OutInTheShed said:
Underwriters have access to vast amounts of claim stats.
I mean that’s b
ks for a start. When I got side swiped they didn’t ask me if I had a towbar (etc). So how can they know if having one raises the risk.Plus we all know they make up their figures with no regard to reality anyway.
Foss62 said:
Sheepshanks said:
Did you declare the dashcam as a mod?
It isn’t a mod it’s an accessory. I do not think the insurers have much of a clue regarding modifications, but if you want stickers, then you're more likely to pay more for insurance, so why not up the price?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff