Admiral Car Insurance Con?

thenudeone

thelawnet wrote: »

The car does not exist so the contract is void. It cannot get any more simple than that. It's contract law 101.

If, like many insurance policies, cover was provided for the insured to drive other people's vehicles (third party), then the services have clearly been provided under the contract, and the insurer was at risk until the policy was cancelled by them.

I doubt that the courts would allow them to refuse to pay out to a third party on policy that they had issued and had not yet cancelled, even if the policy was based on incorrect information (i.e. that the policyholder still owned the car).

mikey72

Then I think you'll find the insurer would be keen to void the policy, then pursue the cusomer to recover the pay out. Check the wording, I've never seen any that doesn't have a disclaimer stating third party doc is only provided for as long as the named insured car is still owned by the insured. So even more confirmation the policy was void at inception by that arguement.