Deleted thread

FlameCloud

A variety of reasons, most of them stupid! The one I can think of is that due to the way independant liabilities are worked out, the excess for both policies is lost in the calculation, thus meaning no excess.

It is perfectly fine to have two policies, and claim on both, PROVIDED you tell them about each other.

Look up the case though of Legal & General vs Drake for the kind of arguement that develops after a claim with two insurers.

JonBoy_SCFC

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

Oh dear, JonBoy. You seem to have upset some people, including me.

This is the last time I am going to post on one of your threads; to be honest I do not think that you are worth the time.

I have seen your views on driving with a mobile telephone and I have concluded that you are just here trying to wind people up.

The members of this forum give their time and advice for free. I have seen them give some very good advice and the assistance they have provided to members of the public with insurance difficulties is a credit to the industry.

If you don't like what we are doing here, leave the site and let us get on with helping people who need it.

As for an example of someone getting sued for third party costs, I know of one company (a former employer) who has an outstanding bankrupcy order for a customer they proved fraud against and were awarded costs at court. I also had someone made bankrupt when I was a Claims Manager in about 1995. They were an uninsured third party who I took exception to.

I'm not going to give you any more details and I don't care what you think of my post. The opinion of colleagues on this site who are here to help people matters to me; you don't.

SORRY IF I UPSET YOU BUDDIE

JUST TO CLARIFY, I DON'T DOUBT THAT INSURERS SUE FRAUDULENT POLICYHOLDERS - WHAT I DON'T BELEIVE IS THAT THIS HAPPENS SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF FRONTING. IT'S JUST TOO MUCH OF A GREY AREA, AND NO COURT WOULD ALLOW ANYONE TO GO BANKRUPT OVER FRONTING

I'D GENUINELY BE INBTERESTED TO KNOW IF YOU AGREE WITH THE ABOVE

JonBoy_SCFC

FlameCloud wrote: »

A variety of reasons, most of them stupid! The one I can think of is that due to the way independant liabilities are worked out, the excess for both policies is lost in the calculation, thus meaning no excess.

It is perfectly fine to have two policies, and claim on both, PROVIDED you tell them about each other.

Look up the case though of Legal & General vs Drake for the kind of arguement that develops after a claim with two insurers.

DON'T UNDERSTAND IT PROPERLY, BUT I'LL LOOK IT UP OVER MY XMAS PUDD, AND LET YOU KNOW HOW I GET ON:beer: :beer: :beer: