Strange Insurance Claim Questions?

[thewarlock]

Afternoon,

Looking for some advice on an issue a colleague is having with an insurance claim.

She crashed her car a couple of weeks ago, someone cut in front of her and braked, hard, on the motorway, in the dark and rain. She swerved, lost control, spun, and wrecked the car.

She didn’t get the number plate of the person that cut in front of her, and they never stopped, so she’s aware she’s going to lose her no claims, and essentially be ‘at fault’.

When she took out the policy, her partner was listed as a named driver. She broke up with him months ago (in a kinda ugly fashion) and hasn’t spoken to him since, doesn’t know where he’s staying, but still has an e-mail address for him. She doesn’t want to use it, doesn’t want to contact him.

However, her insurance company are demanding that she provides his driving licence number and national insurance number, or they will not progress the claim. When she asked why they needed this, they gave a rather wooly non-answer, then said it’s because they’ve passed the claim to a company called Robertson & Co, who appear to be some sort of investigators.

Does anyone have the foggiest idea what’s going on here?

Is my colleague legally obliged to provide a driving licence number and national insurance number for the named person on the policy, that has nothing to do with the incident whatsoever?

And this Robertson and Co, does this seem like her insurers trying to wriggle out of paying out? It’s a pretty straightforward case, I’d have thought. Her car was a shed, probably worth a grand, maybe £1.5k, she bashed a couple of barriers on the motorway, no other vehicles were involved.

She’d appreciate any advice or thoughts anyone has.

Cheers

[Jamescrs]

I suspect it is because when she took out the policy she would have been asked questions about his driving history as a named driver, points, accidents etc. now she is making a claim they want to verify the details she gave at the time of taking out the policy to make sure it was accurate or if anything was "forgotten" which would have caused an increased premium or insurance not to be given.

Any omissions can mean that they either quote a retrospective higher premium or they could take further action.

As long as she has been honest and accurate I don't think there will be an issue

[QBee]

I had a single vehicle accident about 15 years ago, because I managed to dodge colliding head on at a closing speed of 120 mph with the oncoming texter, but only by taking to the ditch at speed.

As far as I remember my insurance premium, when I bought a Mercedes E320 as a replacement for the Saab 9-5 that was written off, was the same as before.

[thewarlock]

Jamescrs said:

I suspect it is because when she took out the policy she would have been asked questions about his driving history as a named driver, points, accidents etc. now she is making a claim they want to verify the details she gave at the time of taking out the policy to make sure it was accurate or if anything was "forgotten" which would have caused an increased premium or insurance not to be given.

Any omissions can mean that they either quote a retrospective higher premium or they could take further action.

As long as she has been honest and accurate I don't think there will be an issue

Ah, I see. That does make sense.

So is she legally obliged to provide this information?
They're saying they will not progress her claim any further unless she provides this information, not only about herself, but about the named driver who was not involved, and isn't around any more.

I understand what you're saying about whether or not his details were accurate, but that seems like a 'them' problem. They were happy to trust her and take her money at the time, but now that it's their money they suddenly want to be extra vigilant?

Thanks

[QBee]

For those reading this, simplify your future claims by removing ex-partners from your policy

[Ninja59]

thewarlock said:

Ah, I see. That does make sense.

So is she legally obliged to provide this information?
They're saying they will not progress her claim any further unless she provides this information, not only about herself, but about the named driver who was not involved, and isn't around any more.

I understand what you're saying about whether or not his details were accurate, but that seems like a 'them' problem. They were happy to trust her and take her money at the time, but now that it's their money they suddenly want to be extra vigilant?

Thanks

I suspect the policy booklet will include something similar to this (this is out of mine):
"Co-operation
after a loss

You must, when we request, give us a signed description of the circumstances surrounding a loss
and provide us with any records, documents, information or evidence that we require.
You must give us all the help and assistance we may need.
You must grant us access to examine your vehicle at all reasonable times.
You must not negotiate, admit or refuse any claim without our permission.
We will decide how to settle or defend any claim."

Which yes means she needs to comply with it as much as she does not want to contact her ex.

It is either that or have bigger issues lasting a much longer time in terms of refused claims and cancelled policies which in most of the open insurance market is for ever and for all general insurance lines. As usually policies will include:

"Cancellation
by us

We may cancel your policy where there is a valid reason for doing so by giving you 7 days’ notice in
writing to your last known address. We will give you a refund in proportion to the time left until
your current period of insurance is due to run out. Valid reasons may include but are not limited to:
• where you fail to respond to requests from us for further information or documentation;"

This is not a them problem, your colleague provided the information originally and the insurers are merely taking reasonable steps to prevent fraud. The bit regarding money is a little bit of a non starter as well, as stated above cancelled policies in general will get refunded minus the time already covered (unless for specific circumstances).

In summary, she need to read the policy booklet for the insurer involved, but I almost guarantee she will have agreed to the above (or similar).

[QBee]

Do be aware that one of the questions when you reaply for insurance is along the lines of "have you ever had insurance cancelled or refused".
Having to honestly answer "yes" will enter you into a world of pain you never knew existed.

[Car bon]

thewarlock said:

So is she legally obliged to provide this information?
They're saying they will not progress her claim any further unless she provides this information, not only about herself, but about the named driver who was not involved, and isn't around any more.

I think you've answered your own question.......

They won't progress the claim until she provides them with the information that they have asked for. So she can either provide the information, or cancel the claim. Her call really...... She could try explaining that he's no longer around and she didn't get around to informing them, but it's a roll of the dice as to where that may lead.

[OutInTheShed]

OP's friend wrote off a car and wasn't hurt?
Good Result.

The rest is only money, and not a lot of it.
Shed 'worth' a small sum, the insurers will say it's worth somewhat less, minus the excess.
Payout is not going to be lifechanging either way.

Moving forwards is more important.

[thewarlock]

OK, thanks for all the advice guys. I'll pass it on and get her to read all the small print in detail.

Cheers

[ralphrj]

I would recommend that she provides her details to the insurance company but to explain in a covering letter that the details for the other named driver are not available due to separation. The named driver wasn't in the vehicle at the time so the requested details are not relevant to the claim.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

thewarlock said:

I understand what you're saying about whether or not his details were accurate, but that seems like a 'them' problem. They were happy to trust her and take her money at the time, but now that it's their money they suddenly want to be extra vigilant?

If they did these checks on everyone taking out insurance, it would be a huge undertaking and be very expensive, and that cost would have to be added on to our premiums. Far more sensible, efficient and cheaper to just do the checks on the relatively small number of policyholders who claim.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

ralphrj said:

I would recommend that she provides her details to the insurance company but to explain in a covering letter that the details for the other named driver are not available due to separation

I wondered about that...but then thought would she then be confessing to not keeping the policy updated of a material fact?

Insurance eh?

[Car bon]

It's also possible that since the split, said ex-boyfriend has been banned - or something else the insurance company know about.

Either way, they should have been informed...... best case, it will be an Oh, OK, not a problem. Most likely case, if you'd have informed us, then we'd have increased your premium by x% therefore will pro rate the claim. most unlikely case is that if she'd told them, they'd have refused / cancelled her insurance. That final one might be the case if said ex-boyfriend is now banned though......

Her best course of action IMHO is to try to talk to him & find out. Plan B would be to tell the insurance company & gather whatever evidence she can to substantiate the date of the split should she need it.

[Cat]

OutInTheShed said:

OP's friend wrote off a car and wasn't hurt?
Good Result.

The rest is only money, and not a lot of it.
Shed 'worth' a small sum, the insurers will say it's worth somewhat less, minus the excess.
Payout is not going to be lifechanging either way.

Moving forwards is more important.

The car may only have been worth a small sum. The cost of the barrier repairs will definitely not be.

Cat

[Griffith4ever]

Cat said:

The car may only have been worth a small sum. The cost of the barrier repairs will definitely not be.

Cat

This wasn't the Nurburgring.

[Mr E]

thewarlock said:

I understand what you're saying about whether or not his details were accurate, but that seems like a 'them' problem. They were happy to trust her and take her money at the time, but now that it's their money they suddenly want to be extra vigilant?

That is not how insurance works.
You tell them stuff. They believe you. If it turns out you were economical with the truth, they may void the policy.

[OutInTheShed]

Cat said:

The car may only have been worth a small sum. The cost of the barrier repairs will definitely not be.

Cat

You're probably right, but if the barriers were fit for purpose, they wouldn't need much repair work.

[elanfan]

Have her write to the insurers and explain she is separated and at this stage doesnt know whether there may a reconciliation. If there’s not one by renewal date she will be taking him off the policy. Say the relationship has broken down and currently they aren’t speaking so is disinclined to make contact but that they are welcome to do so and give his email address.

These things happen in life so it shouldn’t be new to them.

[PorkInsider]

Griffith4ever said:

Cat said:

The car may only have been worth a small sum. The cost of the barrier repairs will definitely not be.

Cat

This wasn't the Nurburgring.

I recall reading it's around £1k per metre for damage to Armco on motorways.