House insurance renewal just arrived

instaunt

mattymoo wrote: »

To suggest the insurer may have subrogated against the neighbour whose house was struck by lightning is plain wrong.

To suggest that someone else is wrong when there are practically no facts or given explanations ... is wrong

For all we know his neighbour might have been building frankenstein next door when the incident occurred. I think that deliberately trying to cause lightning to strike your house for the purposes of bringing someone (or various parts of various people) back from the dead certainly comes under negligence.

In the absence of an actual explanation from the OP, assumptions that the OP is talking nonsense are premature. The question was:

"Does getting something wrong on the renewal form make esure incompetant?"

My opinion is that we do not know whether esure actually got anything wrong and the OP needs to phone for an explanation.

mattymoo

instaunt wrote: »

To suggest that someone else is wrong when there are practically no facts or given explanations ... is wrong

For all we know his neighbour might have been building frankenstein next door when the incident occurred. I think that deliberately trying to cause lightning to strike your house for the purposes of bringing someone (or various parts of various people) back from the dead certainly comes under negligence.

In the absence of an actual explanation from the OP, assumptions that the OP is talking nonsense are premature. The question was:

"Does getting something wrong on the renewal form make esure incompetant?"

My opinion is that we do not know whether esure actually got anything wrong and the OP needs to phone for an explanation.

I don't think I ever suggested the OP was talking nonsense. Only Quote. While the thread has gone off at a tangent it is important that the op knows his insurer has not "subrogated" his claim so that they can explore other possibilities - as you suggest, by phoning esure.