MSE News: Call for insurance law reform

1.7K Posts



This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"A host of experts are calling for a change to rules on what consumers must disclose to prevent unfair claim rejections ..."
"A host of experts are calling for a change to rules on what consumers must disclose to prevent unfair claim rejections ..."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Martin Lewis quizzes Rishi Sunak
Watch the cost of living support Q&A here
Join the MSE Forum discussion
Replies
On the disclosure issue, I completely agree with the need for change. As an insurance adviser I have a legal duty to point out the duty of disclosure to all clients, what non disclosure might mean for them (claims not met etc) and, cruicially, what might constitute non disclosure of a material fact. Very often clients do not understand what this means and even after explaining, quite naturally, possibly important information "escapes their memory".
The Law Commission has been looking at altering the duty of disclosure so that insurers must ask all the questions they want answers to. At least this would shift the balance of power a little.
- the number of insurance claims presented to the company
- the number of claims taken to the Financial Ombudsman by dissatisfied consumers over the same period,
- the percentage of these claims that the Ombudsman subsequently rules on in favour of the consumer.
I have just had the Financial Ombudsman find in my favour against Halifax Home Insurance, but it has taken 2 and a half years for my case to be 'processed' ('due to the excessively high number of complaints they are currently receiving') and we are still arguing over the settlement.
I think the Financial Ombudsman should also fine Insurance Companies for wasting everyone's time with unjust claim rejections, and fine them punitively - an amount large enough to make the FD and MD feel a level of impotence, stress and anger equivalent to that they cause the consumer by their continual denial of a valid claim.
Remember Insurance Companies are not there to protect you, help you or be your friend when you need them. They exist solely to make money for themselves, and they maximize this by finding every possible way not to pay out.
I definately agree that if you Insurers were fined enough to make the FD and MD impotent it would certainly improve their claims performance but possibly not there performance away from business life
- non disclosure where the policyholder could not be reasonably expected to have disclosed the material fact
- non negligent misrepresentation of a material fact
- breach of warranty or condition where circumstances of claim are not connected with the breach
Whilst this still leaves some areas for discussion, it does assist the consumer. The reason this didnt apply in the orginal case cited by Martin is that it was a "pure protection" policy to which these rules do not apply. However, this principle will apply to all general insurance contracts like home and motor. Keep in mind in case you have a claim rejected. Even better - use a quality broker who will ensure that your rights are upheld in situations like this.