Calling Twig the Wonderkid - policy voiding help
Discussion
I have been asked to try to find a definitive answer to a household policy being voided from inception by a company that has a senior sailor as its figurehead. I was hoping Twig might give this the once over for me.
Family friend has had their policy voided. It appears to be over non declaration of subsidence claims in 2009 and 2012 (it is a know subsidence area). The proposal asks have you had any underpinning work carried out Answer Yes. Then asks about subsidence and answer was erroneously answered No. (Quite how you have underpinning work done without having had subsidence or heave I don’t know) The insurers Have sent out engineers to check the recent damage and their conclusion is It’s Inconclusive.
There was a prefilled pdf in amongst a large batch of other papers which they were supposed to either confirm or deny. This never happened and it got forgotten and was never chased up for confirmation. The insurers are using this as their reason to void? They have returned all premiums and say that the voiding of cover will need to be declared to future insurers.
As an ex underwriter and surveyor myself (but retired 11 years so not up to date) I feel thIs is a little harsh as it’s at its heart an oversight with no intention to deceive. The friends have now been totally without insurance for a few weeks. I only found out a couple of hours ago. My advice so far has been to appeal to their better nature and ask for cover to be reinstated temporarily (excluding subsidence and heave until the appeal can be concluded. Once the complaint is rejected it can be taken to the ombudsman but hope it doesn’t need to go that far.
As to the claim it does appear it’s internal only cosmetic cracking and this will not be pursued. All the friend wants is to be able to either continue their insurance without sword of damacles hanging over them.
Help would be appreciated as they have no cover at present and it’s likely new insurers Would not be keen
Family friend has had their policy voided. It appears to be over non declaration of subsidence claims in 2009 and 2012 (it is a know subsidence area). The proposal asks have you had any underpinning work carried out Answer Yes. Then asks about subsidence and answer was erroneously answered No. (Quite how you have underpinning work done without having had subsidence or heave I don’t know) The insurers Have sent out engineers to check the recent damage and their conclusion is It’s Inconclusive.
There was a prefilled pdf in amongst a large batch of other papers which they were supposed to either confirm or deny. This never happened and it got forgotten and was never chased up for confirmation. The insurers are using this as their reason to void? They have returned all premiums and say that the voiding of cover will need to be declared to future insurers.
As an ex underwriter and surveyor myself (but retired 11 years so not up to date) I feel thIs is a little harsh as it’s at its heart an oversight with no intention to deceive. The friends have now been totally without insurance for a few weeks. I only found out a couple of hours ago. My advice so far has been to appeal to their better nature and ask for cover to be reinstated temporarily (excluding subsidence and heave until the appeal can be concluded. Once the complaint is rejected it can be taken to the ombudsman but hope it doesn’t need to go that far.
As to the claim it does appear it’s internal only cosmetic cracking and this will not be pursued. All the friend wants is to be able to either continue their insurance without sword of damacles hanging over them.
Help would be appreciated as they have no cover at present and it’s likely new insurers Would not be keen
OK, I'm a bit out of touch but here's my understanding of the latest insurance act, 2015 I think.
Insurers can void for 2 main reasons.
1. A blatant lie. A deliberate attempt to underpay on premiums by misrepresenting the facts. On a car insurance, lying about your age. Saying you're 27 when you are only 17. Obviously, that can't be an oversight, like forgetting a minor conviction you got 2 years ago. If they think you've pulled to wool over their eyes, they can void the policy. Even if they would have covered you (at a higher price) had you told the truth.
2. An innocent error, if, and only if, had they known the truth, they would have refused to cover you. This is clearly the approach the insurers are taking in this case. Answering YES to underpinning but NO to subsidence says to me it's an error. If they wanted to lie, they would have answered NO to both. But if, had they been told about the subsidence, the insurer would have refused to give a quote, then they can void the insurance. Seeing as they ask both questions, I'm guessing there are reasons for underpinning other than subsidence. Planning to add another floor perhaps??
The only hope they have is to go online and do another quote, with all the same info, and answering YES to both questions, and hope the same insurer provides a quote. If they do, then they would have given cover had they known the truth, and that being the case, scenario 2 is out the window and the ball is in their court to demonstrate that the incorrect answer was a deliberate ploy to mislead them and obtain a lower quote, scenario 1.
Insurers can void for 2 main reasons.
1. A blatant lie. A deliberate attempt to underpay on premiums by misrepresenting the facts. On a car insurance, lying about your age. Saying you're 27 when you are only 17. Obviously, that can't be an oversight, like forgetting a minor conviction you got 2 years ago. If they think you've pulled to wool over their eyes, they can void the policy. Even if they would have covered you (at a higher price) had you told the truth.
2. An innocent error, if, and only if, had they known the truth, they would have refused to cover you. This is clearly the approach the insurers are taking in this case. Answering YES to underpinning but NO to subsidence says to me it's an error. If they wanted to lie, they would have answered NO to both. But if, had they been told about the subsidence, the insurer would have refused to give a quote, then they can void the insurance. Seeing as they ask both questions, I'm guessing there are reasons for underpinning other than subsidence. Planning to add another floor perhaps??
The only hope they have is to go online and do another quote, with all the same info, and answering YES to both questions, and hope the same insurer provides a quote. If they do, then they would have given cover had they known the truth, and that being the case, scenario 2 is out the window and the ball is in their court to demonstrate that the incorrect answer was a deliberate ploy to mislead them and obtain a lower quote, scenario 1.
elanfan said:
The proposal asks have you had any underpinning work carried out Answer Yes. Then asks about subsidence and answer was erroneously answered No. (Quite how you have underpinning work done without having had subsidence or heave I don’t know)
Subsidence is just one of the reasons for underpinning. A mate needed to underpin a section of his period property that was being converted to habitable space. It basically had negligible foundations.
My father had to underpin when he was extending a property. In that case the original foundations were fine, but there was a large amount of earth being removed, and the property was on a slope.
elanfan said:
Thanks Twig very helpful
Another question voiding makes the policy as if it never existed so does hat mean it has to be declared on a new proposal or is it exactly the same as a declinature?
It's debatable, and largely depends on the exact wording of the question. If they ask if you've ever had a previous policy cancelled, I guess that strictly speaking the answer is NO. The policy was voided ab initio, it never existed, and hence it wasn't cancelled. Obviously if they ask about policies cancelled or made void, the answer is YES. Not really my field of expertise (if I even have one), BV72 might offer better advice on that. Another question voiding makes the policy as if it never existed so does hat mean it has to be declared on a new proposal or is it exactly the same as a declinature?
Edited by elanfan on Thursday 11th June 14:04
98elise said:
elanfan said:
The proposal asks have you had any underpinning work carried out Answer Yes. Then asks about subsidence and answer was erroneously answered No. (Quite how you have underpinning work done without having had subsidence or heave I don’t know)
Subsidence is just one of the reasons for underpinning. A mate needed to underpin a section of his period property that was being converted to habitable space. It basically had negligible foundations.
My father had to underpin when he was extending a property. In that case the original foundations were fine, but there was a large amount of earth being removed, and the property was on a slope.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff