Uninsured for years. Can I get my money back?

jonnyukbravo

Our home has been insured since we moved-in four years ago - or so we thought.

The insurer has taken our money for four years.

But - in a phone conversation to them last night they conceded that we have not been insured all that time as we have no alarm.

We were honest in the original policy application - the clause concerning alarms was contained in the policy document (posted to us after the application) which we missed. It required the policyholder to install an approved alarm within 30 days.

So we have been paying for something that they have confirmed was not going to pay out.

Is it possible in this case to ask for a refund as we have been paying for nothing at all?

vusys1

it looks like they have just excluded cover for theft or attempted theft if an alarm is not in place etc.

they have provided cover for the other perils i.e subs,fire,storm,etc

You should have also been told that an alarm would be required.

Was it in your schedule? or in the general policy document.

SandC

It is up to you to read all documentation relating to insurance to check that you are covered for what you think you are covered for.

You admit that you missed this in your policy documents.

I don't think you are due a refund on that basis. Although I do understand how that is easy to miss as generally the question of whether your property is alarmed or not is asked in the application.

foggytown

vusys1 wrote: »

it looks like they have just excluded cover for theft or attempted theft if an alarm is not in place etc.

they have provided cover for the other perils i.e subs,fire,storm,etc.

Oh? Where do you find evidence of this from the info supplied? The insurer told the OP that they have not been insured the last four years. That sounds a lot more general than specific to me. And why assume a burglar alarm? Could as easily be a smoke/fire alarm but OP hasn't been very specific.

Also, did OP have any obligation to provide evidence he had complied with the installation condition? Was it a "condition precedent"? i.e. was there any language to the effect that cover would cease or the policy be voided if no compliance? Did insurer follow up? Was it an assumption of succeeding renewals that the alarm was installed? Too little known at this point but the possibility of refund may exist if OP can get from the insurer an admission that NO claims would have been paid during the last four years.

vusys1

foggytown wrote: »

Oh? Where do you find evidence of this from the info supplied? The insurer told the OP that they have not been insured the last four years. That sounds a lot more general than specific to me. And why assume a burglar alarm? Could as easily be a smoke/fire alarm but OP hasn't been very specific.

Also, did OP have any obligation to provide evidence he had complied with the installation condition? Was it a "condition precedent"? i.e. was there any language to the effect that cover would cease or the policy be voided if no compliance? Did insurer follow up? Was it an assumption of succeeding renewals that the alarm was installed? Too little known at this point but the possibility of refund may exist if OP can get from the insurer an admission that NO claims would have been paid during the last four years.

take a chill pill

OP said " they have not been insured all that time as we have no alarm" based on my experiance with these scenarios I am presuming they have only excluded theft, the OP wasnt specific so neither am
I. (would you exclude subsidence if you didnt have an alarm to BS3621 standards and maintained on an annual contract, with a direct link to the Police station? No)

I have also never heard of Ins company insisting on a smoke alarm (unless it has a thatched roof) so again Iam assuming

If the OP confirms that the INS have not provided ANY cover, then the OP should get 4 years refund

if it is an ALARM discount,just call the insurer and ask for it to be removed, unless it is a requirement they insist on due to high sums insured,post code area,previous theft claims

raskazz

vusys1 wrote: »

If the OP confirms that the INS have not provided ANY cover, then the OP should get 4 years refund

This is not true.

If the insurer would not have accepted the risk had it known the true facts, then the policy may be voidable at the insurer's option but that does not mean that the insurer has to void the policy and refund premiums. It may choose to or it may choose to exercise a cancellation condition.

vusys1

if the Ins company void the policy as they would not have accepted the risk, they must return any monies paid.

if they cancel the policy they cannot say there has been no cover until the cancellation date as they have accepted payments for the policy.

the Ins company cant have it both ways.

raskazz

vusys1 wrote: »

if the Ins company void the policy as they would not have accepted the risk, they must return any monies paid.

if they cancel the policy they cannot say there has been no cover until the cancellation date as they have accepted payments for the policy.

the Ins company cant have it both ways.

But the point is the difference between a policy being voidable and the insurer actually choosing to declare the policy void; and the issue with regards to cover prior to today is irrelevant if no losses have actually been incurred.

For example, if the OP had submitted a claim which would cost less to settle than the amount of potentially refunded premiums, the insurer is then in the position where they would in theory not have provided any cover but would nevertheless not declare the policy void as it would be uneconomical to do so.

foggytown

vusys1 wrote: »

take a chill pill

Sorry - ignorance/incompetence of others does tend to agitate me.

vusys1

foggytown wrote: »

Sorry - ignorance/incompetence of others does tend to agitate me.

i bow down to your experiance.........oh bye the way whens the last time you voided,7 day cancelled,completed a Police statement,attended as a witness,reviewed a security survey,subsidence survey,building survey,engineers report,claims report,claims validation report,counter terrorism enquiry.......

saucepan head

although the original OP did not put as much detail as we would all like others try to help the OP with some general advice,

Think Il reply to all Posts "refer to FOS" seems the safe bet to stop saucepan heads coming back with all the crap:T

McKneff

saucepan head

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

love it...........