What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Are insurers exploiting policyholders when minor 'material facts' are not disclosed?
I quote from my renewal notice:
"MATERIAL FACTS - DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: All material facts must be disclosed. Failure to do so could invalidate the policy. A material fact is one which is likely to influence an insurer in the acceptance and assessment of the proposal. It is an offence under the Road Traffic Acts to make any false statement or withhold any material information for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of motor insurance. IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A FACT IS MATERIAL THEN IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO YOUR INSURER."
Examples include: Details of any accident or loss (whether or not you make a claim) involving your vehicle or that occurs while you, or any driver on your policy are driving anyone else's vehicle. Perhaps I have over-stated the case in describing RTA offences as criminal offences but it must be more than a mere breach of contract, the danger being that your insurer could legitimately refuse a claim (and one doesn't need to give them much encouragement to do that).
"MATERIAL FACTS - DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: All material facts must be disclosed. Failure to do so could invalidate the policy. A material fact is one which is likely to influence an insurer in the acceptance and assessment of the proposal. It is an offence under the Road Traffic Acts to make any false statement or withhold any material information for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of motor insurance. IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A FACT IS MATERIAL THEN IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO YOUR INSURER."
Examples include: Details of any accident or loss (whether or not you make a claim) involving your vehicle or that occurs while you, or any driver on your policy are driving anyone else's vehicle. Perhaps I have over-stated the case in describing RTA offences as criminal offences but it must be more than a mere breach of contract, the danger being that your insurer could legitimately refuse a claim (and one doesn't need to give them much encouragement to do that).
Asked on 4 July 2011 by RE, via email
Answered by
Honest John
This is precisely how Brits set themselves up to be ripped off. We are talking about minor scrapes, not “material facts”. This clause is intended to cover significant bumps. The Insurance business is using it to exploit policyholders. The matter therefore needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court for a sensible ruling. It is patently ridiculous for a policyholder to be compelled to report a £200 scratch that his insurer will not pay for anyway under a £200 excess, but as a result of which it penalises the policyholder with increased premiums.
Tags:
insurance
We give you the low down on how to save on insurance, little-known tricks and tips, what insurance groups mean and how to use insurance aggregators to beat insurers.
Insurance group finder and how to save on insuranceSimilar questions
Which would be the best used car for under £2k for a young driver to insure? I've looked at some 1.0L engines but some are over £3k for insurance and some are under £2k. Does it not just go on the engine...
We are taking delivery of a brand new VW campervan and planning on taking it to Europe in September.
The VW warranty provides breakdown cover in Europe for 3 years but I don't believe it extends to repatriation...
I damaged my 2018 Mercedes-Benz A-Class and unfortunately I had to initiate an insurance claim via my insurer. I was keen to get the car repaired at the local main dealer but my insurer said this would...
Elsewhere on 
.jpg)
