Need Questions Answered about Insurance?

[Oscar]

i know isurance policys suck and there every loop in them to get out of alot of things.

your contract will state that every change to the vehicle has to advised, so if you didnt disclose the change, they can uphold that in court. and if you argue that you didnt know then it wall fall back on your neglegence of not reading the policy.

Bunkum.
Only "material" changes in risk must be advised to the insurer. An insurer can't void a policy or claim because you changed your seat cover, for example.

Not only that, there are clear legal precedents to protect the consumer, amongst them:

• If a contract is ambiguous, any doubt will fall to the advantage of the consumer.
• A Judge will take into account other factors, including advertising material, to determine what the policy holder thought they were buying .

[Oscar]

i like how mr oscar always brings up the insurance law reform act regarding claims.

i have never argued against it.
something not related to the claim/accident is irralivent.

something not followed by the policy document which was agreed on when taking the contract, is not related to claim and can be cancelled on the spot before a claim is accepted or declined. breech of contract.

if it says in your contract that the car must be registered and its not and the insurance company finds out through a claim or other purposes then the company can legaly cancell the policy. if the claim was accepted before finding out the car was not registered then the claim will have to payed out the claim but most cases will cancell the policy straight after.

(this is the most commen situation where a policy is cancelled at claims time, and i have been to many court cases which has always been won in the insurance companys favour, so if any one wants argue about the insurance act, this is a court rulling so the act was kept in mind)
if the car comes in to be looked at by an assesor before any claim is accepted, and it comes to the companys attention that the car is modified to hell and the mods were not disclosed to the company the policy would be cancelled before the claim would be accepted. because in the contract (and this is written into every insurance companys policys), and all modificatons must be disclosed to the company. anything not disclosed to an insurance company that may affect the acceptance of cover on a vehicle gives the company the right to impose larger premiums, higher excess or decline cover without refund.

im not trying to make any company such as AA look bad. im simply being honest. if i am making AA seem like a bad compnay to insure with keep this in mind. they are rated one of the best companys to insure with written in the latest consumer magazine. so if it seems so bad to you that must say alot about other companys that were rated lower then AA.

Do you spend a lot of time in court?

[Oscar]

it is a contract and it does work both ways. insurance company accepts the premiums so you have to accept the policy wordings that they lay down.

have a read of your policy document. they are written by lawers not the underwriters. we come up with the guidelines and have lwaer employed by the company to wrod the documents and contracts etc..

not trying to piss you off or anything. but you do agree to the terms and conditions to the agreement so you have to follow them.

there should be something at the back stating when the company can cancel the policy or refuse the claim. if there is something written in it that you think does not follows the insurance reforms act then write a letter with a reference to the policy wording to the insurance ombudsmen. and it will be changed.

You continue to miss the point in a spectacular fashion.

YOU CANNOT CONTRACT OUT OF COMMON LAW.

You can put anything you like in an insurance policy, but if it doesn't comply with insurance law, the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer G'Tees Act, then it won't count.

Declining a claim or cancelling a policy for no regististration is a classic example of something that falls foul of all of those...

[Mr. Peanut]

Happy 1000th post you whore!

[Oscar]

Happy 1000th post you whore!

Aww shucks I never even noticed....

[NSR-Dan]

Do you spend a lot of time in court?

at least once every 2 weeks

[Oscar]

at least once every 2 weeks

Hardly surprising...

[NSR-Dan]

Bunkum.
Only "material" changes in risk must be advised to the insurer. An insurer can't void a policy or claim because you changed your seat cover, for example.

Not only that, there are clear legal precedents to protect the consumer, amongst them:

• If a contract is ambiguous, any doubt will fall to the advantage of the consumer.
• A Judge will take into account other factors, including advertising material, to determine what the policy holder thought they were buying .

any modification must be advised. a modification is anything the modifys the structure, engine, handling and power of the vehicle. also anything that would increase the theft risk of the vehicle must be advised, a list of things would be written on the policy.

car seat covers would be classed as an accessory.

all clients would be given a coppy of the policy books. which they are able to read. and they accept the details. and there would be a decleration the would have to accept over the phone which is recorded or sign on paper, which states that all the info they have been given is true and anything that may change change during cover must also be disclosed. if not cover may be cancelled

[Jantar]

OK, I have just re-read my policy and there is nowhere that says the bike must be continously registered. The only thing I have to notify AMI about is if I get any traffic tickets.

That suggest AA would be a company to avoid.

[NSR-Dan]

You continue to miss the point in a spectacular fashion.

YOU CANNOT CONTRACT OUT OF COMMON LAW.

You can put anything you like in an insurance policy, but if it doesn't comply with insurance law, the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer G'Tees Act, then it won't count.

Declining a claim or cancelling a policy for no regististration is a classic example of something that falls foul of all of those...

ah but not diclosing something when in the contract it says you must then the contract can be cancelled. this falls under Contract inforcment act

if any party does not follow the agreement of a contract be it insurance or any other contract applying to anything else. there would be a breech of that contract and it would be null-invoid.

most cases it would go to court because there would allways be something conflicting with the other acts you mentioned, allways a judges decission in the end. but unregistered/warrented vehicles, modified vehicles and even if someone under 25 driving the vehicle which was not previously agreed on. the policy can be cancelled under a breech of contract. 90% of the time the judge has ruled in the insurance companys favour.

[NSR-Dan]

OK, I have just re-read my policy and there is nowhere that says the bike must be continously registered. The only thing I have to notify AMI about is if I get any traffic tickets.

That suggest AA would be a company to avoid.

anything about a WOF, or roadworthy??

AA doesnt say registered either, mentions the vehicle must be roadworthy.

we even can offer layed up cover for vehicles that have rego on hold and no warrent. this is cover for vehicles currently under repair, people goin away on holiday ect, no cover is offered while the vehicle is used on the road though.

i have my mini insured under classic restoration cover, so its covered under theft and malicious damage ect, and its not even vinned.

premiums are alot cheaper too. so AA would be a good choice for people with vehicle not on the road.

[Oscar]

any modification must be advised. a modification is anything the modifys the structure, engine, handling and power of the vehicle. also anything that would increase the theft risk of the vehicle must be advised, a list of things would be written on the policy.

car seat covers would be classed as an accessory.

all clients would be given a coppy of the policy books. which they are able to read. and they accept the details. and there would be a decleration the would have to accept over the phone which is recorded or sign on paper, which states that all the info they have been given is true and anything that may change change during cover must also be disclosed. if not cover may be cancelled

Jeez, you certainly have stamina.
Only MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE RISK (as defined by the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977) have to be advised to the insurer. An insurer is unable to decline a claim or cancel a policy unless they have a MATERIAL reason. This is the law and no matter how many times you say to the contrary it is still the law.

A consumer is assumed to be acquainted with the basic policy tenets, they are certainly not obliged to have read the whole thing. An insurer is legally obliged, on the other hand, to make full disclosure to the insured, in plain English.

[NSR-Dan]

damn i have got my posts up tonight
cngrats to oscar for 1000

[Oscar]

ah but not diclosing something when in the contract it says you must then the contract can be cancelled. this falls under Contract inforcment act

if any party does not follow the agreement of a contract be it insurance or any other contract applying to anything else. there would be a breech of that contract and it would be null-invoid.

most cases it would go to court because there would allways be something conflicting with the other acts you mentioned, allways a judges decission in the end. but unregistered/warrented vehicles, modified vehicles and even if someone under 25 driving the vehicle which was not previously agreed on. the policy can be cancelled under a breech of contract. 90% of the time the judge has ruled in the insurance companys favour.

I may forward this whole thread to the Insurance Ombudsman. They could use a good laugh...

[Ixion]

yeah i know what your saying. but they will cancell the policy in past tense.

if the registration was on hold but still warrented it would be fine. (in most cases registration on hold there would be no warrent).

it would always be taken to court to cancel the policy at claims time and would always be the courts decision. If i was attending the case i would state that the client was negligent to not advise us of the deregistration and because this is written into the agreement that it is there obligation to, so if we would have known we would of cancelled the policy as of that date so he would not of been insured and we would have no obligation to pay out on a claim now. so because the client has not upheld the agreement between us the insurance company and the client. we are calling a breech of contract and would like the policy to be cancelled as of the date the situtaion on the vehicle changed.

90% of the time the courts would rule in favour of the insurance company and the cancellation would be back dated to the time the change on the vehicle happend and the present claim would be null invoid

Ah. Now this I know a little about. You are correct , in so far and ONLY in so far , as the changed circumstances are such that knowledge of them in the first place would have caused a reasonably prudent person not to enter into the contract in the first place. The contract can be voided ab initio, or from the time that the chnaged circumstances came into effect.

So, performance modifications, if significant , might be such. A reasonably prudent man might say "I thought I was agreeing to insure a docile shopping basket. Had I known that a turbocharged V8 had been put into it, I would never have agreed to the contract in the first place. The nature of the insured risk has materially changed. This vehicle is not, in fact, the vehicle I agreed to insure". The same cannot be said of the case where a registration lapses . There is no material change in the nature of the risk, or of the goods insured.

BTW , is there an Insurance Ombudsman? It seems very wrong and improper for insurance companies to be putting out contracts with such straw clauses in them. If I were taking out insurance and were offered such a contract I would strike out such clauses, and if the insurer objected, say farewell. But most people will not take the trouble to read such documents.

I also remind you that uberissime fides runs both ways. I think that a very good argument could be made , that by incorporating such clauses, the insurance company is not in fact acting in "utmost good faith", and is precluded from the benefit of ANY exempting clauses.