VOID Car Insurance

raskazz

GIK wrote: »

The logic being?

The logic I am following is:-

The OP lied/did not disclose a major material fact and so the Insurance co. on discovery rescinded the contract and returned the premium and has therefore no liability.

Why would they retain the premium?

Your logic is flawed because there are different categories of non-disclosure, as others have pointed out in the thread, namely:

1) Innocent
2) Inadvertent
3) Deliberate
4) Reckless

See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

So if the OP was proven to have "lied" (i.e. knowingly provided incorrect information) then this would be categorised as 3) deliberate non-disclosure, in which case the insurer would be entitled to avoid the policy and retain the premium.

forgotmyname

I thought they asked have you EVER been convicted of drink driving.

Quentin

forgotmyname wrote: »

I thought they asked have you EVER been convicted of drink driving.

They don't, but if anyone asked that question you could safely answer no if the conviction was spent.

weejonnie

The problem that the insurer has (to keep the premium) is that they have to prove deliberate or reckless non-disclosure. This is, as you can imagine, an extremely difficult thing to do. Thus the usual attitude amongst insurers is to void the policy and return the premiums - even if they 'think' the fraud was deliberate.

vaio

yep, but to void the policy they still must have a reason that'll get past the FOS.

If it wasn't deliberate or reckless then it is either innocent or inadvertent and for both these voiding generally isn't allowed and claims must be met in full

crodge25

I have read several articles and most of them state that deliberate fraud the premium does not have to be returned

I believe the original policy was 700 so there for only 500 cheaper but I would of paid the difference

I was banned for 9monyhs as I did the drink rehabilitation course which took 3months off my total ban.

There is only 14 months inu dummy quote and when the actual quote was made. Surely if they accept now it would accept then.

Fingers crossed I can get something out of this. I appreciate it was a silly mistake but 9k to find is an awful lot to stomach and to fork out.

weejonnie

vaio wrote: »

yep, but to void the policy they still must have a reason that'll get past the FOS.

If it wasn't deliberate or reckless then it is either innocent or inadvertent and for both these voiding generally isn't allowed and claims must be met in full

In the future Uberrima Fides is going to go the way of all flesh - the result will be an increase in premiums as insurers will have to cover more and more 'innocent or inadvertent' non-disclosure claims payouts.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

yep, but to void the policy they still must have a reason that'll get past the FOS.

If it wasn't deliberate or reckless then it is either innocent or inadvertent and for both these voiding generally isn't allowed and claims must be met in full

This is not true, In the case of inadvertent non-disclosure the insurer can void the policy if it would not have accepted the risk had the true facts been known. As per:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

"Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether."

raskazz

crodge25 wrote: »

I believe the original policy was 700 so there for only 500 cheaper but I would of paid the difference

There is only 14 months inu dummy quote and when the actual quote was made. Surely if they accept now it would accept then.

Hastings are an intermediary so I wouldn't get your hopes up just because you've got a quote from their website recently.

You still have two hurdles to jump:

1) To confirm that the insurer which you have obtained a quote from recently is the same insurer that your voided policy was with - if it was with a different insurer then it means nothing.

2) Then you have to prove that that same insurer would have accepted your risk had it known the true facts when you actually took the policy out.

Just_Some_Guy

crodge25 wrote: »

There is only 14 months inu dummy quote and when the actual quote was made. Surely if they accept now it would accept then.

You can't say that for certain. The insurance company can change their underwriting rules at any point for any reason, so the fact you get a quote today doesn't tell you anything about the situation 14 months ago. Also is the quote with the same underwriter (different to being with the same brand)? You need to ensure you are comparing apples with apples.

I don't think you will be able to convince people like the ombudsman that this was an innocent or inadvertent non disclosure. The argument will be that either you didn't check whether a recent DR10 needed disclosure (recklessness) or that you chose not to disclose it for whatever reason (deliberate). One does not simply get a DR10 and a nine month ban only to forget about it when buying a motor insurance policy a couple of years later.

Who knows what the ombudsman will actually think though.