Urgent question re insurance renewal

mattymoo

foggytown wrote: »

You don't appreciate the difference between the denial of a claim and the voiding of a policy ab initio?

Yes - I know what both are (after 23 yrs in the industry) but neither has anything to do with security conditions.

dacouch

I wonder who said this

"In our view, a policyholder who has failed to comply with the security requirements in force will not lose protection under the policy unless failure to comply is relevant to the loss. If, for example, the policyholder agreed to have his or her window locks secured whenever the house was empty, but then forgot and was burgled, it would not be reasonable for the insurer to reject the claim unless the burglars were able to get into or out of the house by means of an unlocked window""

FlameCloud

foggytown wrote: »

It could be worse than that! Many insurers would use your non-compliance with their lock requirements as a convenient reason to deny any claim. It has often been the case that a breach of a condition or warranty (even unintentionally) doesn't necessarily have to be pertinent to the loss itself to deny the claim or void the policy from inception.

I'd strongly consider you reading ICOBS Chapter 8, specifically the point about when an insurer can avoid the policy or claim for breach of a warranty if you seriously think it doesnt have to be material. You will note that this is legally binding on insurers.

FlameCloud

Here it is, being generous-

8.1.1 An insurer must:
(1) handle claims promptly and fairly;
(2) provide reasonable guidance to help a policyholder make a claim
and appropriate information on its progress;
(3) not unreasonably reject a claim (including by terminating or
avoiding a policy); and
(4) settle claims promptly once settlement terms are agreed.
A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except
where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:
8.1.2
(1) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the
policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed;
or
(2) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk;
or
(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the
claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure
protection contract):
(a) under a 'life of another' contract, the warranty relates to a
statement of fact concerning the life to be assured and, if
the statement had been made by the life to be assured under
an 'own life' contract, the insurer could have rejected the
claim under this rule; or
(b) the warranty is material to the risk and was drawn to the
customer's attention before the conclusion of the contract.
8
FSA

foggytown

dacouch wrote: »

I wonder who said this

"In our view, a policyholder who has failed to comply with the security requirements in force will not lose protection under the policy unless failure to comply is relevant to the loss. If, for example, the policyholder agreed to have his or her window locks secured whenever the house was empty, but then forgot and was burgled, it would not be reasonable for the insurer to reject the claim unless the burglars were able to get into or out of the house by means of an unlocked window""

I give up. Who?

foggytown

FlameCloud wrote: »

Here it is, being generous-

Again, it specifically refers to denied claims. Not a word about voiding a policy - which would have the same effect.

foggytown

mattymoo wrote: »

Yes - I know what both are (after 23 yrs in the industry) but neither has anything to do with security conditions.

I don't think you are really understanding this - and I'm not inclined to educate someone with 23 years experience.

dacouch

foggytown wrote: »

I give up. Who?

The Ombudsman

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/4/minimum-security.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/4/minimum-security-case-studies.htm

As flamecloud has pointed out the ICOBs cover this matter more specifically

FlameCloud

foggytown wrote: »

Again, it specifically refers to denied claims. Not a word about voiding a policy - which would have the same effect.

Really? The part 3 in section 8.1.1 mentions nothing avoiding a policy at all? I'd best go to the opticians then!

By any chance, do you work in an insurer call centre where Icobs is either unheard of or a mythical document that only exists to be forgotton about and irritate insurers?

mattymoo

foggytown wrote: »

It could be worse than that! Many insurers would use your non-compliance with their lock requirements as a convenient reason to deny any claim. It has often been the case that a breach of a condition or warranty (even unintentionally) doesn't necessarily have to be pertinent to the loss itself to deny the claim or void the policy from inception.

Please do educate foggytown - this was your earlier statement and subsequent posts and arguments clearly show it is incorrect. How did you arrive at such a statement?