Insurance (total loss) payout query

[Dift]

Very quick question,

Following the theft of my 125cc from my work car park (hospital), my bike insurance company are suggesting (Not yet confirmed) that because I have another job (which wasn't on the insurance schedule) which although is the same field but for a different employer (Not the NHS), that the case may not get settled and insurance cancelled.
Is this likely, if I appeal is it going to be fruitless?

Tottally my mistake that I didn't update my policy but could they really cancel my insurance because of an part time job?

Thanks

[TooMany2cvs]

Was the bike in the work car park while you were doing that job when it was nicked?

If not, it's totally irrelevant.

[Dift]

It was in the work car park when it was taken. I only use the bike for my hospital job as parking is a challenge at best.

[TooMany2cvs]

Dift said:

It was in the work car park when it was taken. I only use the bike for my hospital job as parking is a challenge at best.

And the hospital job isn't the one you told 'em about?

[Dift]

Both my jobs (nhs and private) fall under the same heading as medical research on comparison websites.

However this is a new to me hospital (job) so realistically this job can't be the one I originally quoted for as I was not in position when the policy was taken out.

I only used the bike really for pleasure until I started working locally at the hospital.

[TooMany2cvs]

Dift said:

I only used the bike really for pleasure until I started working locally at the hospital.

Was it covered for commuting?

[anonymous-user]

Do you have cover for commuting?

[Dift]

Yes. Covered for commuting (Not specifically a single place of work)

[anonymous-user]

I can't see it being legitimate grounds for refusal if the job was taken mid term.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 13th July 17:44

[TooMany2cvs]

From the sound of it, they'll be really struggling to justify anything but a full payout to the ombudsman.

[Dift]

It was only my 3rd day 🙈.

I'll keep the thread updated with the conclusion as I hate when people don't.

It's a measly payout in the grand scheme of things, so will take a hit if the ombudsman says I have to.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TooMany2cvs said:

Was the bike in the work car park while you were doing that job when it was nicked?

If not, it's totally irrelevant.

That's not true. The non disclosure of information to an insurer can void a policy, even if the non disclosure wasn't relevant to the claim.

Eg. you don't tell them about your previous drink drive conviction, then your car is stolen from your house whilst you are on holiday. If they don't normally insure people with drink drive convictions, they can refuse your claim.

So in this case, if they never cover people with more than one job, then the OP could have his claim declined.

I think it's unlikely though.

[Dift]

Insurance paid out without any hassle at the value I insured it for.

I've not even sent them the V5, keys or any other paperwork yet.

Thanks

[EU_Foreigner]

Which ins company was that? Does it sound like the beginning of "Viva la France"

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's not true. The non disclosure of information to an insurer can void a policy, even if the non disclosure wasn't relevant to the claim.

Eg. you don't tell them about your previous drink drive conviction, then your car is stolen from your house whilst you are on holiday. If they don't normally insure people with drink drive convictions, they can refuse your claim.

So in this case, if they never cover people with more than one job, then the OP could have his claim declined.

I think it's unlikely though.

Your undestanding of insurance law appears to be some years out of date and therefore inaccurate. An insurer may no longer void a consumer insurance policy for a reason unrelated to the policy or claim.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Breadvan72 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's not true. The non disclosure of information to an insurer can void a policy, even if the non disclosure wasn't relevant to the claim.

Eg. you don't tell them about your previous drink drive conviction, then your car is stolen from your house whilst you are on holiday. If they don't normally insure people with drink drive convictions, they can refuse your claim.

So in this case, if they never cover people with more than one job, then the OP could have his claim declined.

I think it's unlikely though.

Your undestanding of insurance law appears to be some years out of date and therefore inaccurate. An insurer may no longer void a consumer insurance policy for a reason unrelated to the policy or claim.

Not true. They can if the information that was withheld would have meant they wouldn't have accepted the risk in the first place.

Extreme scenario. Person gets diagnosed with terminal cancer, given 6 months to live. Has no life insurance. Takes out a policy saying they are in perfect health, hoping optimistically that when they die, the insurer won't check. 3 months later they get struck by lightning and are killed.

You think the insurance company have to pay out on the life policy. Not a chance.

[anonymous-user]

I reiterate that your understanding of the law of insurance appears to be out of date and inaccurate. Your scenario about life insurance has nothing to do with the mistaken point that you put forward above. Failing to make a relevant disclosure is still important. Your contention was that an insurer could void a policy for an irrelevant non disclosure. The law as to that changed in 2012 (consumers) and 2015 (non consumers).

[sc0tt]

Breadvans correct. I did a claims handling course yesterday as part of the IDD.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Breadvan72 said:

I reiterate that your understanding of the law of insurance appears to be out of date and inaccurate. Your scenario about life insurance has nothing to do with the mistaken point that you put forward above. Failing to make a relevant disclosure is still important. Your contention was that an insurer could void a policy for an irrelevant non disclosure. The law as to that changed in 2012 (consumers) and 2015 (non consumers).

Read my post again. OP failed to disclose he had 2 jobs. I made it quite clear that his insurance company could refuse to meet the claim.....if they never offered insurance to people who had 2 jobs. If they could demonstrate that, then they could refuse the claim.

An insurance company do not have to pay a claim if, had they known the truth, they never would have insured that person in the first place. Even if the cause of the claim is unrelated.

However, if they would have covered the person, maybe on higher terms, then they have to meet the claim, but can deduct the extra premium they should have received.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 10th August 08:44

If I've got that wrong, then tell me why they could refuse the life cover claim on the guy with cancer struck by lightning?

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 10th August 08:46

[anonymous-user]

I thought that a relevant non-disclosure would be one that was material to the inception of the policy.

So an insurer can avoid the claim if they can demonstrate they wouldn't have been on cover had the disclosure been accurate.

There was a case recently were a claim was avoided because the policyholder said his house had 5 bedrooms when it had 7 and the decision to cancel the policy was upheld by the ombudsman as the insurer didn't cover any homes with more than 5 bedrooms.