What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Should the Association of British Insurers comment on the lack of 'good faith' in the industry these days?
An increasing number of letters featured in your column concern the practices of insurance companies. The problem it seems to me is that the insurance industry is now run by bean counters who have forgotten (assuming they ever knew) that insurance policies are unique in that they are said to be founded on the principle of utmost good faith and are as a result exempt from the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act. It is simpler for insurers to meekly give in to the demands of ambulance chasers rather than deal with claims on their merits and to then to reflect their deteriorating claims experience in increased premiums.
But what of ‘utmost good faith’ that should apply equally to both parties to the contract? They expect full disclosure from a prospective insured and are entitled to refuse a claim and repudiate the cover entirely if full disclosure is not made, so should not the insuring public be entitled to their best professional endeavours also? Good faith applies both ways and if those making spurious claims encounter rigorous investigation and are made to prove their allegations I am sure those who trumpet ‘no win no fee’ will have to be rather more circumspect since their own costs will escalate and they may not be able to recover them from insurers.
The Government could help if there was a change in the Law so that it is held in the case of ‘no win no fee’ contracts that the solicitors or accident management company acting is assumed to be the claimant and therefore responsible for insurers costs if insurers win the case. At present, many of those making questionable claims are impecunious and insurers are left to foot the bill even if they win. ‘No win no fee’ means that they have nothing to lose and their claim can be sheer speculation. What is the point of professional qualifications if those working in insurance are not called upon to act professionally?
The Association of British Insurers should be asked to comment on the lack of good faith since they represent an industry that has a captive clientele who must insure by law but who are receiving very poor service from insurers and certainly very little ‘good faith.’ Has anybody asked them to reply to these charges on behalf of insurance companies they represent? Perhaps they would care to reply through The Telegraph.
But what of ‘utmost good faith’ that should apply equally to both parties to the contract? They expect full disclosure from a prospective insured and are entitled to refuse a claim and repudiate the cover entirely if full disclosure is not made, so should not the insuring public be entitled to their best professional endeavours also? Good faith applies both ways and if those making spurious claims encounter rigorous investigation and are made to prove their allegations I am sure those who trumpet ‘no win no fee’ will have to be rather more circumspect since their own costs will escalate and they may not be able to recover them from insurers.
The Government could help if there was a change in the Law so that it is held in the case of ‘no win no fee’ contracts that the solicitors or accident management company acting is assumed to be the claimant and therefore responsible for insurers costs if insurers win the case. At present, many of those making questionable claims are impecunious and insurers are left to foot the bill even if they win. ‘No win no fee’ means that they have nothing to lose and their claim can be sheer speculation. What is the point of professional qualifications if those working in insurance are not called upon to act professionally?
The Association of British Insurers should be asked to comment on the lack of good faith since they represent an industry that has a captive clientele who must insure by law but who are receiving very poor service from insurers and certainly very little ‘good faith.’ Has anybody asked them to reply to these charges on behalf of insurance companies they represent? Perhaps they would care to reply through The Telegraph.
Asked on 4 July 2011 by GL, Edge, Glos.
Answered by
Honest John
You are absolutely right, especially where the concept of "utmost good faith" is used against policyholders to increase their premiums for any excuse. I would like to see my idea of not declaring minor bumps to the insurer, but instead settling the matter privately, tested in The Supreme Court. Many insurers are of the opinion that this contradicts "utmost good faith" and entitles the insurer to void the policy, which, to me, is plainly ridiculous.
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
I parked wife’s car legally. Hours later we returned to find side damaged but no other vehicle admitted responsibility. Wife claimed repair on her insurance. I’ve just been told by an insurance company...
Is it your understanding that an accident involving a named driver on the policy is also noted against the insured at Claims Underwriting Exchange (CUE) and therefore the accident has to be disclosed by...
I purchased a Saga Plus car insurance which runs out this month. In the first year of cover I hit a concrete bollard in a car park whilst distracted by another drivers actions. I instigated a claim with...
.jpg)
