to cancel car insurance with claim on going

vaio

so #7 was wrong and having two policies isn't illegal?

sdt1986

vaio wrote: »

so #7 was wrong and having two policies isn't illegal?

I've already covered that. You said that everything was wrong or irrelevant after that, I pointed out that it may be irrelevant but not incorrect from then on.

If you're going to argue with me at least don't be pety, it's not going to help my working day pass any quicker arguing with someone void of any wit.

vaio

Think you meant “petty” and “devoid”

You covered it in post #9….

sdt1986 wrote: »

Okay okay, if you want to be pedantic, I was just saving time in having to explain it, whilst it's not illegal to have, it is illegal to try and make a claim, so why pay for two policies.

so #7 was wrong and having two policies isn't illegal but making a claim has now become illegal?

Is that correct? If so I’m guessing the OP will be concerned because he has a claim in progress on his policy

sdt1986

vaio wrote: »

Think you meant “petty” and “devoid”

You covered it in post #9….



so #7 was wrong and having two policies isn't illegal but making a claim has now become illegal?

Is that correct? If so I’m guessing the OP will be concerned because he has a claim in progress on his policy

I did mean Petty and devoid.

If he was to have two policies on one vehicle and was to make 2 identical claims this would be double indemnity which is illegal. That is what I pointed out and that is correct, whether or not he was to do this is another thing.

vaio

I guessed that was what you meant

I’m not sure what you mean by “double indemnity”, making two full car insurance claims for the same loss isn’t double indemnity (at least as I understand it) is just plain fraud so if the thrust of the last 20 posts is that fraudulent claims are illegal then I agree.

Maybe we should just add wife beating and littering to the list of wrong/illegal things and then go back and delete all the irrelevant clutter from this thread?

sdt1986

vaio wrote: »

I guessed that was what you meant

I’m not sure what you mean by “double indemnity”, making two full car insurance claims for the same loss isn’t double indemnity (at least as I understand it) is just plain fraud so if the thrust of the last 20 posts is that fraudulent claims are illegal then I agree.

Maybe we should just add wife beating and littering to the list of wrong/illegal things and then go back and delete all the irrelevant clutter from this thread?

Why delete, it's a discussion board, the fella has had his advice, he can see what's right and what's wrong through discussion. A little digression arguing, discussing, etc etc never hurt anyone but it certainly makes the day go faster.

We can only add wife beating if he wears a vest (or singlet if you're an Aussie) and drinks stella.

sdt1986

How is it not double indemnity if through means of fraud someone get's indemnified twice?

vaio

My understanding of double indemnity was that it is an insurance term where under defined circumstances twice the sum insured was paid out.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Double+Indemnity

what you are talking about is just straight fraud.

FlameCloud

sdt1986 wrote: »

Erm yes it is illegal to make a claim on two insurance polcies for one car. It's double indemnity.

Again, no its not.

If the insurer is switched on they will only pay 50% of the claim and force him to claim the rest through the other insurer.

You really dont know what you are talking about on this one. Your mistake is assuming that they would claim more than the value of the vehicle.

thenudeone

sdt1986 wrote: »

Excuse me, point out ten times where I've been wrong. I've not been wrong about anything I've said.

Yes you are. You said:

sdt1986 wrote: »

You're breaking the law, it is illegal to have two insurance policies on one vehicle.

Which is not true.

Two people (perhaps who own a car jointly) can each have an insurance policy on the same vehicle, as long as they have given the insurers all the relevant information. Both have an insurable interest and a statutory obligation to have insurance.

BTW I would advise anyone in this situation to carry both insurance certificates at all times, because the police/MID dataabase can only hold FULL details of 1 policy at a time. It will record that there is a second policy held, but it will not show any details of the second policy.

If it was illegal to have two policies on one car you'd better get the police round to Aviva's head office because they sell this: http://www.aviva.co.uk/short-term-car-insurance/