Insurance validity II
Discussion
The mods thread was interesting so what about declaring accidents?
Supposing you'd forgotten to mention an accident when you took out the policy, but mentioned it when you crash into someone? (they ask on the telephone about previous accidents in the event of a claim).
Can they return your premium then tell you you're on your own, having to pay out the 3rd party yourself?
Do they pay (claim-x) pounds where x is the extra premium you'd have paid if you mentioned the accident before?
I got the impression from the other mods thread that insco is legally obliged to pay out the 3rd party but might then come back to you through the courts for what they'd paid out.
SM
Supposing you'd forgotten to mention an accident when you took out the policy, but mentioned it when you crash into someone? (they ask on the telephone about previous accidents in the event of a claim).
Can they return your premium then tell you you're on your own, having to pay out the 3rd party yourself?
Do they pay (claim-x) pounds where x is the extra premium you'd have paid if you mentioned the accident before?
I got the impression from the other mods thread that insco is legally obliged to pay out the 3rd party but might then come back to you through the courts for what they'd paid out.
SM
When I phoned Adrian Flux to get a quote for insurance on my, recently acquired, Maserati, I gave them the registration number and they told me the exact model, the VIN number and date of registration. From my name and postcode they could see I had motorcycle insurance with one years no claims on it, full no claims on my car insurance and had made a no fault, fully recovered, claim on 17/2/05 (when someone ran into the back of me while I was stationary).
Whether all companies have access to this data, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. Going on this, I suspect they already know about your accident whether you told them or not. I assume they use their discretion to decide whether you simply forgot about it or were deliberately trying to avoid telling them about it. That or they simply hold it in reserve to pull out of the hat if you do try and make a claim.
Whether all companies have access to this data, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. Going on this, I suspect they already know about your accident whether you told them or not. I assume they use their discretion to decide whether you simply forgot about it or were deliberately trying to avoid telling them about it. That or they simply hold it in reserve to pull out of the hat if you do try and make a claim.
I should point out this is a hypothetical question! 
That raises another question. If they are doing an honesty test when you take out the insurance knowing that in the event of a claim they'll contest it, that sounds like sharp practice. I'd have thought they should tell you what their records show and simply ask you if it's correct -- like they do with the vehicle.
I might but insurance for my 911 claiming it was not a turbo, say. They could take the non-turbo premium knowing that if I claim it'll be bounced for non disclosure. Seems a bit wrong.
But supposing, for whatever reason, they discover the discrpency between the facts and what you told them at the time of a claim, and they decide you were deliberately trying to deceive them. What would they do? Could they cancel the policy and leave you to pay off the 3rd party?
What I'm shooting at here is can I be run into by somebody who gives me their details but when I approach her insurance company for my payout they refuse saying I've effectively been hit by an uninsured driver due to non-disclosure on her part?
SM
>> Edited by supermono on Thursday 2nd March 11:05
That raises another question. If they are doing an honesty test when you take out the insurance knowing that in the event of a claim they'll contest it, that sounds like sharp practice. I'd have thought they should tell you what their records show and simply ask you if it's correct -- like they do with the vehicle.
I might but insurance for my 911 claiming it was not a turbo, say. They could take the non-turbo premium knowing that if I claim it'll be bounced for non disclosure. Seems a bit wrong.
But supposing, for whatever reason, they discover the discrpency between the facts and what you told them at the time of a claim, and they decide you were deliberately trying to deceive them. What would they do? Could they cancel the policy and leave you to pay off the 3rd party?
What I'm shooting at here is can I be run into by somebody who gives me their details but when I approach her insurance company for my payout they refuse saying I've effectively been hit by an uninsured driver due to non-disclosure on her part?
SM
>> Edited by supermono on Thursday 2nd March 11:05
Section 148 RTA 88, under circs described above, will make the Insurers pay out to the third party but because of a clause which appears common in Policies that Insurance Commpany should be informed of any factors likely to increase risk and if not done then opens the gate for Insurance Company to come back at Policy holder for sums that they have paid out by civil action.
dvd
dvd
Thanks DVD that answers the question.
Now supposing the 3rd party was guilty of some creative claiming. Say they charged for recovery when the car was actually driven away. The crasher notified the insurer of witnesses watching him/her driving away but in the event the insurer paid the trumped up charge anyhow because it was cheaper than fighting it.
Could they still reasonably expect the crasher to recompense them?
SM
Now supposing the 3rd party was guilty of some creative claiming. Say they charged for recovery when the car was actually driven away. The crasher notified the insurer of witnesses watching him/her driving away but in the event the insurer paid the trumped up charge anyhow because it was cheaper than fighting it.
Could they still reasonably expect the crasher to recompense them?
SM
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff