"Have you ever been refused insurance"
Discussion
What is the point in that question, and how can they justify it as a means of loading your premium?
How far do you take it in being up front with your answer? In the days before comparison sites back when i had a full head of hair, i used to spend a whole day on the phone trying to get the best deal covering a fast car or van with an engine swap, , 2.0 16v nova gte and an astra van with gte 16v running gear. plenty of companies refused to even quote me stating either we dont cover under 25s, we dont cover under 25s for high group cars or we dont cover modifications that expensive, i would get maybe 10 or so knockbacks out of calling 30ish places until finding decent cover. Lv ended up being the best by miles for mods usually.
Should i really be trying to explain all that s
te or just answer no?
How far do you take it in being up front with your answer? In the days before comparison sites back when i had a full head of hair, i used to spend a whole day on the phone trying to get the best deal covering a fast car or van with an engine swap, , 2.0 16v nova gte and an astra van with gte 16v running gear. plenty of companies refused to even quote me stating either we dont cover under 25s, we dont cover under 25s for high group cars or we dont cover modifications that expensive, i would get maybe 10 or so knockbacks out of calling 30ish places until finding decent cover. Lv ended up being the best by miles for mods usually.
Should i really be trying to explain all that s
te or just answer no?A failure to quote because you fall outside of their criteria (age, modifications, convictions, etc) isn't a refusal in the formal sense.
"Refused insurance" in this context means that you either had a claim rejected for reasons that are outside the scope of the policy cover (i.e. reasons without which it would otherwise have been honoured) and/or the company has declined to offer you a renewal when you - the "you" that is bundle of statistics - would otherwise fit their criteria for cover, if that makes sense.
Essentially it relates to whether you specifically have been refused cover because of actions (or inactions) that you have taken. If it were the case that merely being informed that a company has declined to quote formally counts as a refusal then most 17 year olds would never be able to get insurance.
"Refused insurance" in this context means that you either had a claim rejected for reasons that are outside the scope of the policy cover (i.e. reasons without which it would otherwise have been honoured) and/or the company has declined to offer you a renewal when you - the "you" that is bundle of statistics - would otherwise fit their criteria for cover, if that makes sense.
Essentially it relates to whether you specifically have been refused cover because of actions (or inactions) that you have taken. If it were the case that merely being informed that a company has declined to quote formally counts as a refusal then most 17 year olds would never be able to get insurance.
On the advice of an insurance company worker, I always declare I've had a policy cancelled. I'm fed up with it, and don't mince my words.
Due to the incompetence of a broker, a policy was started for me in the mid 1980's with a company that did not not cover employees of the company I worked for at the time. There was plenty of time to have taken other cover but instead of so doing, they argued most lengthily. The first I knew about any problems was approximately two months in, when I had to take new cover with another company.
It's never cost me much, perhaps a little in the first year, but to still have to declare it 30 years later is daft. The only person/company that did wrong was the broker, and yes, they are still trading.
Due to the incompetence of a broker, a policy was started for me in the mid 1980's with a company that did not not cover employees of the company I worked for at the time. There was plenty of time to have taken other cover but instead of so doing, they argued most lengthily. The first I knew about any problems was approximately two months in, when I had to take new cover with another company.
It's never cost me much, perhaps a little in the first year, but to still have to declare it 30 years later is daft. The only person/company that did wrong was the broker, and yes, they are still trading.
OldGermanHeaps said:
What is the point in that question, and how can they justify it as a means of loading your premium?
Because they see, with statistical proof, somebody who has been previously refused cover as a sign that they are going to be far more likely to cause them expensive trouble.OldGermanHeaps said:
How far do you take it in being up front with your answer? In the days before comparison sites back when i had a full head of hair, i used to spend a whole day on the phone trying to get the best deal covering a fast car or van with an engine swap, , 2.0 16v nova gte and an astra van with gte 16v running gear. plenty of companies refused to even quote me stating either we dont cover under 25s, we dont cover under 25s for high group cars or we dont cover modifications that expensive, i would get maybe 10 or so knockbacks out of calling 30ish places until finding decent cover. Lv ended up being the best by miles for mods usually.
Should i really be trying to explain all that ste or just answer no?
That isn't you being refused cover.Should i really be trying to explain all that s
te or just answer no?That's an insurer declining to quote for an entire demographic group or a particular type of vehicle.
Got it. They should really frame that question a lot more clearly. As loon would endlessly bang on about you are supposed to answer the exact wording of the question they are asking, not your own interpretation of what you think they are asking or what you think they are entitled to know.
OldGermanHeaps said:
Got it. They should really frame that question a lot more clearly. As loon would endlessly bang on about you are supposed to answer the exact wording of the question they are asking, not your own interpretation of what you think they are asking or what you think they are entitled to know.
Generally speaking you just have to be honest. In this instance you were being too honest. 
OldGermanHeaps said:
Got it. They should really frame that question a lot more clearly. As loon would endlessly bang on about you are supposed to answer the exact wording of the question they are asking, not your own interpretation of what you think they are asking or what you think they are entitled to know.
Well, quite. The exact wording of the question...A passing Meerkat said:
Have you or any additional drivers, ever had an insurance policy declined, cancelled, voided or had special terms imposed?
I'm fairly often declined cover by companies because of the type of car and location I live in.
When asked whether I have ever had insurance refused then I tell them this, and they always say it isn't relevant. But I still tell them, to ensure that they can't in the future claim I haven't told them something that is relevant.
When asked whether I have ever had insurance refused then I tell them this, and they always say it isn't relevant. But I still tell them, to ensure that they can't in the future claim I haven't told them something that is relevant.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff