Insurance question

[BertBert]

LoonR1 said:

To all intents and purposes yes. However you still have to answer truthfully.

That's going a bit far don't you think?

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Nope, can't find anything about the man, the scooter & the factory fire.

Any legal eagles able to help me out?

[LoonR1]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Nope, can't find anything about the man, the scooter & the factory fire.

Any legal eagles able to help me out?

Do I win then?

[Devil2575]

You insure your car with company X.

Halfway through your policy you decide to change your car for something more powerful. Your current insurer does not wish to cover you on this new vehicle so you take your business elsewhere.

Does this mean you have now been declined insurance?

At the end of your policy your current insurer states that you no longer meet their criteria so they decline to provide a quotation for the following year.

Does this mean you have been declined insurance?

You ring up to get an insurance quote from a new insurer and get told that they will not provide cover so will not quote.

Does this mean that you have been declined insurance?

[LoonR1]

Devil2575 said:

You insure your car with company X.

Halfway through your policy you decide to change your car for something more powerful. Your current insurer does not wish to cover you on this new vehicle so you take your business elsewhere.

Does this mean you have now been declined insurance?

No. You are looking to chnage the terms of the policy, the insurer is happy to carry on under previous terms, so not a declinature.

Devil2575 said:

At the end of your policy your current insurer states that you no longer meet their criteria so they decline to provide a quotation for the following year.

Does this mean you have been declined insurance?

No. They have changed their riteria for a future policy, so not a declinature.

Devil2575 said:

You ring up to get an insurance quote from a new insurer and get told that they will not provide cover so will not quote.

Does this mean that you have been declined insurance?

No. See above.

This has been explained several times already on many threads. Declined / special terms / cancelled only relates to a policy that is in force at the time that the declinature etc happened.

There is only one scenario above where that is the case, but that involves a change to the policy, so not an issue.

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

Devil2575 said:

At the end of your policy your current insurer states that you no longer meet their criteria so they decline to provide a quotation for the following year.

Does this mean you have been declined insurance?

No. They have changed their riteria for a future policy, so not a declinature.

During the policy you have had an accident that is on the face of it non fault but still unresolved and so classed as own fault until resolution. As a result you no longer meet their long standing criteria of no drivers with more than X own fault accidents i.e. you already had X own fault accidents when you took out the policy. So they decline to requote.

Have you been declined insurance?

And yes, the driver in question is a liability

[LoonR1]

Devil2575 said:

During the policy you have had an accident that is on the face of it non fault but still unresolved and so classed as own fault until resolution. As a result you no longer meet their long standing criteria of no drivers with more than X own fault accidents i.e. you already had X own fault accidents when you took out the policy. So they decline to requote.

Have you been declined insurance?

And yes, the driver in question is a liability

And still the questions come.

It's an annual policy, so you don't get rerated part way through it after an accident. Which would lead to them declining to offer renewal, which has already been covered.

If the vehicle was a write off, then the policy ends (don't get confused with the same policy number, meaning it's the same policy). They would decline to offer you terms for a new policy. So this has already been covered.

Neither scenario means you've been declined / cancelled / special terms.

Any more you want to ask, or will the below suffice:

You have only been declined / cancelled / special terms when an existing policy is altered by the insurer where all T&Cs remain the same. In practice in today's world this is as simple as:

1. You lied on your proposal and more information has come to light eg points / accidents / not parked where you say it is etc

2. You've stopped paying your instalments

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

And still the questions come.

Because not everyone thinks these issues are straight forward.

Thank you for your detailed response though.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

LoonR1 said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Nope, can't find anything about the man, the scooter & the factory fire.

Any legal eagles able to help me out?

Do I win then?

Not yet.

I suppose there's an outside chance that my legal studies tutor was telling lies during that particular lecture.

[LoonR1]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Not yet.

I suppose there's an outside chance that my legal studies tutor was telling lies during that particular lecture.

Or coming up with a hypotetical situation to see what his students came up with.

I want my winnings.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

LoonR1 said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Not yet.

I suppose there's an outside chance that my legal studies tutor was telling lies during that particular lecture.

Or coming up with a hypotetical situation to see what his students came up with.

I want my winnings.

T'aint over yet...

[MMT]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

LoonR1 said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Not yet.

I suppose there's an outside chance that my legal studies tutor was telling lies during that particular lecture.

Or coming up with a hypotetical situation to see what his students came up with.

I want my winnings.

T'aint over yet...

I think I can hear the fat bird singing though.

[TVR1]

The Spruce goose said:

''Have you ever had an insurance policy declined, cancelled, voided or had special terms imposed?''

What an ambiguous question and how can insurance companies enforce this, considering they specify no time limits, making it unfair?

How is that ambiguous? Pretty clear to me. This isn't a question that is trying to get around the Rehabilitation of offenders Act. Just answer honestly and you may be surprised at the outcome. FFS guys, it isn't rocket science. Look up what is meant buy 'utmost good faith'. An example;

I'm 43. I drive and have a history of driving fairly powerful cars for work. I also have a predeliction for Lotus and TVR and older Mercs.

However, I have no No Claims to speak of. I also live in a high risk area (London) but I can still insure a Merc SL 450 for £120 a year. The lotus? £400.

I also have a DD 15 years ago. And I declare it every time I have asked to be insured.

Someone is doing this getting quotes thing wrong? But it sure isn't me.

Edited by TVR1 on Monday 29th April 23:35

[anonymous-user]

TVR1 said:

FFS guys, it isn't rocket science.

I disagree but look further up the thread it has been answered, thanks for your imput.

[Noger]

Devil2575 said:

LoonR1 said:

And still the questions come.

Because not everyone thinks these issues are straight forward.

Thank you for your detailed response though.

They certainly aren't straight forward, although Loon has presented it as simply as anyone.

They way I try to work it is to think about how the insurer is behaving. Are they targeting ME or the GROUP. So if I ask an OVer 50s insurer for a quote (and I am under 50) they are not declining ME. But if they impose a special endorsement on my policy, for something I have done, then it qualifies.

[Noger]

BertBert said:

LoonR1 said:

To all intents and purposes yes. However you still have to answer truthfully.

That's going a bit far don't you think?

Well, you do at least have to TRY to answer truthfully. Reasonable care. It is still possible to answer untruthfully but have taken reasonable care. In the past, when Utmost Good Faith was alive and well, this was still misrepresentation (what the FOS called Innocent) but the CIE now makes it a non qualifying.

So prior to April, the insurer had a statutory remedy for misrepresentation (from the 1906 Marine Insurance Act) which was Voidance. Nothing to stop you voiding the policy, apart from the wrath of the FOS.

Now, we have no statutory right to void for innocent non-disclosure.

In reality, not a lot has changed (at least with misrepresentation). This was the way the FOS worked previously.

What is quite nice, from an insurers perspective, is the statutory duty on consumers to take reasonable care in answering questions. Let's be clear, a lot of consumers don't give a stuff. Yet to see anything filtering though, but I do wonder if we will see MORE increased premiums and imposed terms coming out of CIA. It is probably going to be harder to void, as you will need to show either a) it was careless and you wouldn't have insured them in the first place or b) it was reckless / deliberate.

The statutory remedy in case of paying claims is also quite interesting....and one that I think I probably alluded to in the past....

If you are careless in giving the required information (but not fraudulent) and this means your premium was much lower, any claim can be reduced by the same proportion.

So, premium should have been £1000 and you paid £500 because you didn't check something, and you write off your £50,000 car....you only get £25,000 in settlement.

This isn't pretending your car has no mods, and belongs to your mum etc etc. That is still voidable.

This is more like "I couldn't remember when that happened".

Going to be interesting when these start happening !

[LoonR1]

Very interesting indeed. I'm awaiting the flood of these followed by the complaints and threads on here.

[Noger]