Car insurance quote 'Have you ever been declined' etc....

raskazz

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

All personal information will be deleted by the insurance company after 6 years, as with other financial institutions.

Are you sure about this? My insurer does not delete the record after 6 years, merely archives it.

If insurers did delete the whole policy record after 6 years then the !!!! would quite seriously hit the fan if they received a Personal Injury claim 7 years after the policy lapsed, which is certainly possible under the Limitation Act if the third party was a minor at the time of the accident!

Oscar_The_Grouch

raskazz wrote: »

Are you sure about this? My insurer does not delete the record after 6 years, merely archives it.

If insurers did delete the whole policy record after 6 years then the !!!! would quite seriously hit the fan if they received a Personal Injury claim 7 years after the policy lapsed, which is certainly possible under the Limitation Act if the third party was a minor at the time of the accident!

Good point and true. I happily withdraw the deleted records bit of my post.

foggytown

And not all insurers limit the question to the class of insurance involved. "Car insurance" may just be "insurance". This is one of those lovely little catch-alls that insurers can run to for comfort when a big, bad claim arises. Insurer doesn't quite know how to word what it wants (and what would be fair) so it casts the biggest net it can.

So, what if I made a claim on my auto policy and, in the course of their investigation, the insurer discovered that I hadn't declared in my proposal that . . .

1) I had mistakenly applied for an over-50s life poliy 10 years ago and been declined because I would have been only 49 on inception date
2) I have a very expensive item and, when I got a fine arts policy to cover it, the insurer attached a special condition that I must advise them before it is going to be removed from the bank vault
3) I had a 500cc motorcycle insured and traded it in for a 1000cc. The insurer said that would be too big for their underwriting guidelins so the policy was cancelled and I went to another insurer.

All three circumstances would have NO relevance or provide ANY insight to the deliberations of an underwriter when looking at my proposal for comp cover on my 04 Mondeo. Yet, they could be used to void a policy in the event of a claim because, technically, they weren't disclosed on the proposal.

Medical policies are even worse i.r.o. dislosures.

Jackapoo

If you are asked a question when completing an application for insurance you need to answer it to the best of your knowledge. So if your asked "have you ever had insurance etc.....?" then you need to answer that question.

dunstonh

1) I had mistakenly applied for an over-50s life poliy 10 years ago and been declined because I would have been only 49 on inception date

Wouldnt matter. That isnt something that is refused because of underwriting or something you have done.

2) I have a very expensive item and, when I got a fine arts policy to cover it, the insurer attached a special condition that I must advise them before it is going to be removed from the bank vault

Not relevant as cover was offered and terms agreed.

3) I had a 500cc motorcycle insured and traded it in for a 1000cc. The insurer said that would be too big for their underwriting guidelins so the policy was cancelled and I went to another insurer.

That should be declared. Although in reality it wouldnt make any difference in premium or ability to get cover and an insurer would not refuse any claim.

The "catchall" isnt an automatic right for an insurer to reject a claim. It certainly gives them ground but the FOS non-disclosure rules give more consumer protection than the courts would.

A general rule of thumb is that you answer the question as asked and let the insurer decide if its something important or not. If you choose to non-disclose information then you are running a risk. Just because you run a risk, does not mean the end result will be a rejection of a claim.

foggytown

dunstonh wrote: »

Wouldnt matter. That isnt something that is refused because of underwriting or something you have done.



Not relevant as cover was offered and terms agreed.


That should be declared. Although in reality it wouldnt make any difference in premium or ability to get cover and an insurer would not refuse any claim.

The "catchall" isnt an automatic right for an insurer to reject a claim. It certainly gives them ground but the FOS non-disclosure rules give more consumer protection than the courts would.

A general rule of thumb is that you answer the question as asked and let the insurer decide if its something important or not. If you choose to non-disclose information then you are running a risk. Just because you run a risk, does not mean the end result will be a rejection of a claim.

I think you missed the point, old son, which was that the average proposer wouldn't really know whether those scenarios were relevant or not but would probably consider them not to be because they are so far removed from what seems pertinent.

Are you really epecting someone who is, say, 60 to recall each and every insurance-related event in his/her life?

Quote

dunstonh wrote: »

being refused a quote is not what they are on about. Its if you have applied and then been rejected that they are interested in.

Forgive my ignorance. What does this ^^^ mean?

dunstonh

Quote wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance. What does this ^^^ mean?

If someone is aged 49 on a product that has a minimum age of 50, it won't get to the point to be able to issue an illustration of benefits or a quotation. It will hit a rejection too early in the process to show as a refusal/decline. Its not an underwriting decline or amendment. Its the fact that you dont even qualify for the product in the first place.

I think you missed the point, old son, which was that the average proposer wouldn't really know whether those scenarios were relevant or not but would probably consider them not to be because they are so far removed from what seems pertinent.

If in doubt, mention it.

Are you really epecting someone who is, say, 60 to recall each and every insurance-related event in his/her life?

minor events? No. They wouldnt be expected to either. However, major events would be. Especially if you are a frequent mover of insurance and have to keep churning the same information out each year.

At the end of the day, failure to disclose would be looked at using the FOS guidelines. They (in very very short summary) would break it down to being either intentional non-disclosure or accidental non disclosure.

sghughes42

I must admit this thread has got me worried as either myself or my mother may well have been guilty of this for a number of years.

When I passed my test I was put on her insurance. She insured through a broker who dealt with the change in policy seemingly without issue initially. They took payment, issued a covernote etc.

However, after a period of time (this was in 1993 so details are sketchy) the broker contacted us to say the original company decided not to cover the risk so they'd moved us to another company.

Does this mean that we should actually be answering yes to this question? And who should answer it - me as having me added to the cover was refused? Or as it wasn't my policy does it not apply to me? And should my mother be declaring it as it was her policy? Also, should the broker not have checked whether the change would be allowable before taking our money and issuing a covernote? That way, rather than it being refused we could have cancelled and changed to another company who were willing to insure me.

(As an aside I wonder if I was actually covered in that period between the covernote being issued and them declining to insure me)

foggytown

Selden wrote: »

I think you are trying to take a commonsense approach to this, which is admirable but does not reflect the law or the practice of some insurers.

The question is whether you have ever had cover refused. The correct answer is clearly "Yes". There is no legal basis for interpreting the question to mean "Have you ever had cover refused because of underwriting or something you have done?".

Again, I disagree. You have been asked whether you have ever had special terms applied to a policy. The answer is clearly "Yes". It's for the insurer to decide on the relevance once it has the full facts.

Or, as an long-time lawyer friend of mine is very fond of saying, "I've read the law and I've been to court, and haven't noticed much similarity between the two."

The very real problem being highlighted in this thread is the "damned both ways" position occupied by the typically inexperienced insured. If he follows the advice given by some in here and discloses everything he can recall (whether pertinent or not) he runs the risk being flagged by the system forever for no good reason. If he tries to act intelligently and responds only substantively, he may get stuffed by an insurer using this against him.

Selden is right, in the general insurance world there is no longer any real underwriting being done.