Insurance voided due to underinsurance. Help please!

suali_uk

Just to reinforce, fight any case where you have been let down by insurers whom you trust to put things right when things go wrong! Or else what use is it to have insurance and pay year on year premiums.....
I have some good news to follow soon hopefully....

suali_uk

Hey folks what's up! Merry Xmas to one and all. We have a result, I emailed the Dom Littlewood show re: our situation and they took up the case. I also complained to the FOS with a thorough trail of emails and communications. Esure refused to communicate with Dom on the basis that they had rightfully cancelled my policy due to underinsurance and would not reinstate or discuss the matter unless the FOS upheld my complaint. Luckily the FOS upheld my complaint on the grounds that esure did not ask about my high risk goods on their website hence they could not therefore void the policy as they knew what they needed to know and I didn't! The fos suggested,the fact they didnt ask and i wasnt deliberate in the misrepresentatin they could not then void my policy on grounds of underinsurance and underwriting criteria of 1/3rd high risk as their webiste did not explain this and they knew of this criteria but i didnt. Result! Esure then started communicating with Dom and we got a reinstated our insurance and the claim was settled fully plus 8 % interest paid for delays as instructed by the FOS. Esure would not have settled so quickly or fully had it not been for the Dom show! So merry Xmas all and remember never giv up the fight in this David and Goliath war.... We were lucky we had the media on our side and acheived the maximum settlement, but the FOS is there for everyone... ;-)

suali_uk

Dunston and flamecloud, I'm sorry folks but it has to be said you are a depressing pair on this forum and need to set up somewhere else as u can seriously demoralise anyone from fighting their case. Seldon u are an absolute gem and star, u deserve commendation and honorary membership here. It was your support and advice that motivated me throughout, you went out of your way to even draft a letter for me with relevant case precedent and references. Thanks a million and my best wishes to u and family during this peaceful period. Big thanks to all the other supportive people on this site too.

mikey72

Good result.

It shows every complaint should be followed up with the FOS if the insurer won't play fair.

dunstonh

Dunston and flamecloud, I'm sorry folks but it has to be said you are a depressing pair on this forum and need to set up somewhere else as u can seriously demoralise anyone from fighting their case.

In post #5 of this thread I said there was no harm with you taking it to the FOS and they may uphold your complaint.

I'm sorry that you feel that telling you to refer it to the ombudsman was not the right thing.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

In post #5 of this thread I said there was no harm with you taking it to the FOS and they may uphold your complaint.

I'm sorry that you feel that telling you to refer it to the ombudsman was not the right thing.

Don't you mean post 3, when you dismissed nearly any chance of the FOS agreeing with the op?
Or post 7 when you said the same again?

magpiecottage

Looking back at this thread, it seems that the complaint was upheld by FOS because the website on which the OP applied for the policy was unclear.

The OP made mention to something about not seeing it earlier on but it was not made entirely clear.

The FOS decision should not have been influenced by media involvement, though.

2sides2everystory

magpiecottage wrote: »

The FOS decision should not have been influenced by media involvement, though.

And why on earth not? Is this something which should be put to Lord Justice Leveson, we wonder? And afer he's drawn his conclusions maybe we could start the Financial Services Ethics Inquiry?

I think I somehow completely missed this thread but good result and well done all who steered it that way.

Voiding a policy in a case like this is unforgiveable and just plain ruthless. The underwriters are probably cold as fish and not as pretty. My motor insurance has been with esure this year - one or two MSE'ers warned me when I changed that esure were not as cuddly as Michael Winner used to make out - I think maybe I should look around come renewal.

dunstonh

Don't you mean post 3, when you dismissed nearly any chance of the FOS agreeing with the op?

You seem to be ignoring the questions I asked to gain more information. There is no mention of me dismissing any chance of the FOS agreeing. Just explaining how its usually looked at and asking for more info to help the discussion to look at the issues.

Or post 7 when you said the same again?

I did no such thing. I said the arguments on some of the points being made were going to be difficult and it looks like the complaint wasnt upheld on that basis. So, I appear to be correct.

if you look at how the thread developed, it became clear that that the complaint outcome was not related to many of the points raised or discussed on the thread. The information supplied over the thread changed the position and the way the complaint was upheld also reflects that.

mikey72

I think the thrust of this ruling shows the onus is on the insurer to ask the right questions, and if they suggest a level of cover, it's up to them to get it right, not for the customer to be liable for their error.

Even the FSA have had to remind insurers on the very subject, for products sold through comparison sites.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/insurance/price_comparison/index.shtml