|
When you insure a car they ask you if you are the owner/registered keeper. If you don't give them the correct info they have every right to refuse to pay out on a claim. This of course applies to answering all the other questions truthfully as well.
If they paid out on every claim where the policy holder had lied through his back teeth to get their premium down we would all be paying more. Why should I pay more for someone else's lies.
|
|
There are far too many posters on here that forever winge about insurance companies not paying out and garages not being willing to carry out warranty repairs when its the posters own fault.
Tell the insurance company the truth and service your car in accordance with the schedules and you will have nothing to complain about.
But there again, if posters had nothing to complain about there woul be no posters for me to complain about.
|
|
There is a car. It is required to be insured. An insurance company steps up to the plate, accepts the risk, takes the premium, issues a policy. There is a claim on that paid up policy, the company refuses to pay on the claim. That is called defaulting on a claim- it could be construed as fraud-taking money under false pretences.
Get a good lawyer and sue the trousers off of the insurance company-there is far too much of this sort of mealy-mouthed avoiding of liability by insurance companies-if you don't like paying out on claims mr insurance company, don't issue insurance policies, get into another line of business, it's as simple as that.
|
There is a car. It is required to be insured. An insurance company steps up to the plate, accepts the risk, takes the premium, issues a policy. There is a claim on that paid up policy
You've conveniently missed a part out - the customer completes a proposal giving details of the risk.
If the proposal is incorrect & untruthful then the cover is void.
The OP says that the insurance co was aware of the ownership status in which case it should pay; it is wasn't then it shouldn't pay.
Simplez
|
|
thank you for this...it is the most important factor...my truthful disclosure...the broker asked the questions and i answered fully and honestly...why wouldnt i?..both the broker and insurer would have or should have known that the policy was potentially worthless in the event of a claim....if the insurer accepts the risk then there is a policy...if the insurer claims that the info they received from the broker is in some way different from that which i have evidence i gave (recordings and letters pre-policy,and corroboration post policy),then the broker might be at fault and not the insurer...either way...ive suffered and im not at fault....one or the other must surely pay up...
but to all others reading with similar policies.., please be aware,go back and check your policies,amend them,dont endure what i have to...
|
|
|
|
There is a car. It is required to be insured. An insurance company steps up to the plate, accepts the risk, takes the premium, issues a policy. There is a claim on that paid up policy, the company refuses to pay on the claim. That is called defaulting on a claim- it could be construed as fraud-taking money under false pretences.
Get a good lawyer and sue the trousers off of the insurance company-there is far too much of this sort of mealy-mouthed avoiding of liability by insurance companies-if you don't like paying out on claims mr insurance company, don't issue insurance policies, get into another line of business, it's as simple as that.
many thanks for support...its injustice on an enormous scale..lets not forget, the staff at these companies are aware of what they do...would you like have your kids marry one?..worse, father your grandkids!
|
|
|
|
|
|
the good news for me and us all is that the application for insurance DOES quote the car owner as 'company', and the insured as 'myself'.....all right and proper at my end.i disclosed fully. might this alter your view?
|
|
|
When you insure a car they ask you if you are the owner/registered keeper. If you don't give them the correct info they have every right to refuse to pay out on a claim. This of course applies to answering all the other questions truthfully as well.
If they paid out on every claim where the policy holder had lied through his back teeth to get their premium down we would all be paying more. Why should I pay more for someone else's lies.
ive already said that the insurer was aware that the car was company owned and that i was applying for insurance. no lies from me
|
|
|
When you insure a car they ask you if you are the owner/registered keeper. If you don't give them the correct info they have every right to refuse to pay out on a claim. This of course applies to answering all the other questions truthfully as well.
If they paid out on every claim where the policy holder had lied through his back teeth to get their premium down we would all be paying more. Why should I pay more for someone else's lies.
or you might re-read my opening post....by your reckoning then, i ought to be paid without fail
|
|
|
|
I am with you all the way on stopping insurance companies issuing policies they know can be worthless in the event of a claim. On that basis no one would insure anything. Are they saying that if you own the car but your company insures it then you have no claim? That is riduclous. Why should it matter who pays the premium? You are paying them for insurance cover for that vehicle and they accepted the risk. Who does what and to whom is irrelevant provided it is legal. Best of luck. Concrete
same thing...the copmpany doesnt have an insurable interest in simple terms, unless it provided the cash and all the paperwork stacks up in a legally enforceable way...minefield eh.
|
|
Any dodgy insurance company can seek to avoid paying out on a claim. Simply by saying that the proposer didn't tell them something, however insignificant it may be.Such as the car has been modified because it's got different wheel trims on it, or additional lamps, or a different steering wheel for example-oh yes it has happened.
The way that UK vehicle insurance is organised is a total joke in that it's the person that is insured, not the car as on the continent.
I live in France, it's not perfect here, but vehicle insurance is a lot clearer-any vehicle has to be insured 24/7/365 to what the UK would call a minimum of third party, and you have to display a sticker on the windscreen to prove it.
If some scroat nicks your car, and in the process of driving it away causes damage to property or people it's insured, because anybody can legally drive any car here because every car has to be insured minimum of third party.
Watching some of the UK police series on TV is amusing to watch them trying to find out who might be insured to drive a particular car-what a totally flawed system.
|
|
|
|
update. still awaiting the ombudsman decision on the first complaint of insurer not paying out for theft of company car due to the insured (me) being 'just' the owner of the company and hence no legal insurable interest.
since i could never make a claim on the policy as sold,it did not legally satisfy my needs, and so is a mis-sale. this second complaint of mis-selling is now laid at the feet of the broker.this too awaits the ombudsman,might be upto another 6 weeks before i hear anything.
i used a comparison site to insure my company car as a company director today. no problem, i was quoted by 100+...and yet in each case, the above scenario could/would play out.
anyone out there with ANY experience of this?..the ombudsman must act fairly and consistently im told...
|
|
Update
The Financial Ombudsman found in my favour.... The insurer can no longer rely on the defence upon it was relying...We have won.
However... the insurer has come up with another reason they feel is reason to not pay the claim...they insist that the car is a 'ghost car' and only existed on paper,based on their investigation and on information they have held for over 3 years..
so...originally they accepted that the car did exist and defended that I had no insurable interest ,which I have overcome..., and now that the car never existed, that there was a fraudulent application to the dvla by the importer' (their parenthasis) on a car which exists in europe and has never been to the uk....and 'I run the risk of continuing a fraudulent claim', the inference being that they will seek to prosecute me if I continue to claim.
All and any advice gratefully welcomed.
|
and 'I run the risk of continuing a fraudulent claim', the inference being that they will seek to prosecute me if I continue to claim.
Press the claim and see them in court if they're daft enough to try it on. It's their funeral.
I take it that you can actually prove that the car existed and was in your posession......?
|
|
'prove'. ah yes, they like to use this word...
'prove'....well..
log book is in my name from dvla ( though insurer claims the application for V5 by previous owner was fraudulent,car was a 'ghost' they claim)
tracker was most certainly fitted and working,even at time of theft.
multi photos and witnesses to my excess of spyder action
they dont like the fact that I rarely used the car due to the 'big freeze', that there was compact snow/ice, that its dark at 4pm....its what I didnt do to 'prove' rather than what can easily and certainly be proven...ie, doesnt appear on any anpr list and didnt move (tracker) for a couple of months due to bad weather,...but then,they wouldnt have any hope to avoid the policy otherwise eh?
thank you for your support though...muchly welcomed
|
|
they dont like the fact that I rarely used the car due to the 'big freeze',
So they'd have been happier if you taken it out in entirely unsuitable conditions and almost inevitably, written it off? You were doing them a favour here by minimising risk.
>> and didnt move (tracker) for a couple of months due to bad weather
So you have tracker data proving it was in your garage the whole time then?
|
|
|
|
|
Service records and sppeding tickets or the like should be capable of proving the car's existence.
|
|
it hadnt yet reached service date, and was parked up due to it being dark at 4pm and the 'big freeze' winter of 09/10...it sat in its warm garage and stayed safely put. cant imagine driving such an accelerate- torque-steer car on the ice
thank you for your welcome reply...all gratefully welcomed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
