Insurance get-out-clause

CapJ

There is a quite a big difference between:

"Know"
and "ever met"
or even "ever met and have spoken to"

The policy exclusion is correctly worded in my opinion. I think you are misinterpreting it.

donboon

This is the law as quoted by Wikipedia:
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c 50) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to both actual contract terms and notice that are seen to constitute a contractual obligation.

The Act renders terms excluding or limiting liability ineffective or subject to reasonableness, depending on the nature of the obligation purported to be excluded and whether the party purporting to exclude or limit business liability, acting against a consumer.

It is normally used in conjunction with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083),[1] as well as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

According to the insurers the wording means exactly what it says however they exercise the condition at their discretion. So long as I register and record my objection now I'm able to continue with my policy and contest the condition if it should ever be applied.

donboon

CapJ wrote: »

There is a quite a big difference between:

"Know"
and "ever met"
or even "ever met and have spoken to"

The policy exclusion is correctly worded in my opinion. I think you are misinterpreting it.

There is no misinterpretation especially if you think about it. Through this discussion I know of you, not much admittedly but none the less I know of you and likewise you clearly know of me. If asked on oath "have you ever corresponded with a donboon on this forum" you would have to say yes. The insurers could therefore claim that we are "known" to each other.
The insurers are quite specific and have chosen their words very carefully. To know someone is simply to have knowledge that they exist, no degree of personal relationship or interaction is required or specified.
It's for this reason i think the condition is unfair. Had they been more specific about the relationship or association then we might see common ground but the term is far to general and all-encompassing.

kimberleyanddarren

I should imagine this is to stop people pretending there was a crash to get money out, making false claims etc etc. I shouldnt think it would include someone you met down the pub 10 years ago.

donboon

kimberleyanddarren wrote: »

I should imagine this is to stop people pretending there was a crash to get money out, making false claims etc etc. I shouldnt think it would include someone you met down the pub 10 years ago.

Well, I asked the brokers to clarify the same point only I suggested it might be someone I met on my travels or in a hotel for instance. The reply was simple, if they are known to me in any shape or form, or under any circumstances then the condition applies. The insurers would not give in to requests for clarification or specifics. They insisted they could apply the condition because it was left to their discretion how they applied it. The brokers confirmed that this meant the insurers could, if they wanted, include someone I met down the pub 40 years ago. The odds of them knowing that are indeed slim but it won’t be the case for long. Insurers are steadily developing profiles for everyone and computers are being programmed to look at patterns (including your voice which often indicates if you are telling lies). If nothing else, finding out that you knew the person who damaged your car is a bonus to them as despite the sense of the condition being in question the fact is you agreed to it and this gives them a bargaining chip to negotiate a lower settlement.

magpiecottage

If it concerns you, I suggest you ask the Financial Services Authority to consider whether the term is unfair. Although normally the OFT deals with these issues, the terms of a contract of insurance would be dealt with by the FSA.

They have forced a number of firms to change terms they considered unfair or that they thought were open to unfair interpretation.

donboon

magpiecottage wrote: »

If it concerns you, I suggest you ask the Financial Services Authority to consider whether the term is unfair. Although normally the OFT deals with these issues, the terms of a contract of insurance would be dealt with by the FSA.

They have forced a number of firms to change terms they considered unfair or that they thought were open to unfair interpretation.

The concern is: Is there any advantage or legal requirement to challenge the condition before anything has happened and risk a legal battle and losing a competitive insurance or wait and challenge the condition IF it is applied afterwards. The advice given before has been to wait however I risk losing several thousand pounds and knowing how things work the question could be raised as to why I didn't argue the case first or change my insurers. Fortunately, the law allows the consumer to enter into a contract even when they know there is a condition which they consider is unfair. This is because they need to develop a situation where neither party will give way before the authority can become involved. Furthermore, the claimant has to show why they think the condition is unfair so until the situation unfolds there are too many variables to argue.

CapJ

donboon wrote: »

There is no misinterpretation especially if you think about it. Through this discussion I know of you, not much admittedly but none the less I know of you and likewise you clearly know of me. If asked on oath "have you ever corresponded with a donboon on this forum" you would have to say yes. The insurers could therefore claim that we are "known" to each other.
The insurers are quite specific and have chosen their words very carefully. To know someone is simply to have knowledge that they exist, no degree of personal relationship or interaction is required or specified.
It's for this reason i think the condition is unfair. Had they been more specific about the relationship or association then we might see common ground but the term is far to general and all-encompassing.

You are rewriting the English language. The phrase "known to you" clearly includes a degree of familiarity.
I understand why you are concerned here but I think it is needless. The broker is obfuscating the issue, no doubt for his own motives. I suggest you relax about this clause.