Pathetic Aviva Scrape the Barrel

globalds

dacouch wrote: »

I had a customer who was with Aviva, his very expensive car £70k was stolen and ended up in the local river.

The Insurers did not believe him and the police were also suspicious.

The arguments went on for months, eventually the Insurers tested the car key (The car had no signs of being stolen) The car key showed that it had been used when the car was stolen. The Insurers told me they knew he had done it and asked the client tell the truth as he was probably covered anyway.

Eventually he told the truth (after assurances the Insurers would not ell his wife). He had been out driving with his mistress and whilst driving he became "distracted" and drove through a fence and into the Thames. He panicked and came up with the story.

Aviva accepted the claim and excuse and paid out £70k which most companies would have refused to pay

I hope my wife doesn't read this thread... :-(

vaio

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Why is that not equal? It sounds to me like both sides are betting the total cost of the claim against the outcome there.

did you read the thread?

yates lost and is now £170k down

if the insurers had lost they would have had to pay the disputed £9k

RobertoMoir

vaio wrote: »

did you read the thread?

yates lost and is now £170k down

if the insurers had lost they would have had to pay the disputed £9k

Yes, I read the thread and looked at the judgement.

I assumed you were talking in generalities, and that's the context I replied to you in, as it seems fairly self-evident to me (I appreciate you may not agree with that!) that this particular example was an attempt to defraud the insurer, not the usual dispute over t&cs or value of an item.

Incidentally, surely the insurers would essentially have had to pay £169k - the cost of the insurance payout plus the "project management" charges? Not quite so inequitable when you think of it like that is it?

doubleJackD

PDAH wrote: »

The above was the claimant's submissions...the fee seemingly was not paid. It was claimed but not paid.

my heart bleeds for the OP!!

only thing you could do to get some attention is padlock yourself to some chains and jump into the sea.

PDAH

No normal honest person thinks "My house got flooded, quick, lets form a
limited company."

The claimant got caught with their hand in the cookie
jar. I don't blame the insurer for not paying out on this one. I don't think its
the same as invalidating an entire £1000 claim over a dispute about a £30 item,
as that's one of the OP's examples.

The insurer could and should have simply said we are not paying the project management fees as are they are not recoverable. The fee was around 3% of the entire claim so to have an issue with something so comparatively small and use it to not pay out on the rest of a genuine loss is unreasonable.

Spiderham

PDAH wrote: »

The insurer could and should have simply said we are not paying the project management fees as are they are not recoverable. The fee was around 3% of the entire claim so to have an issue with something so comparatively small and use it to not pay out on the rest of a genuine loss is unreasonable.

Well I think one reasonable way to decide it would be taking it to court to see what a judge thinks. Oh wait they did and the judgement was in favour of the insurer.

This isn't just a case of an insurer refusing to pay a claims, it is also backed up by the court judgement. How is it unfair if the courts have decided this precisely is what is fair?

RobertoMoir

PDAH wrote: »

The insurer could and should have simply said we are not paying the project management fees as are they are not recoverable. The fee was around 3% of the entire claim so to have an issue with something so comparatively small and use it to not pay out on the rest of a genuine loss is unreasonable.

If it had been an error - someone attempting to claim stuff in the mistaken belief that they were entitled to claim, I'd totally agree with you.

But it was intentional. It was a willful attempt to take money from the insurance company that the householders were not entitled to. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of the document you link to yourself spell it out pretty clearly.

mikey72

It's punative though. £170k fine for being a !!!!!!!! is excessive.

RobertoMoir

mikey72 wrote: »

It's punative though. £170k fine for being a !!!!!!!! is excessive.

There was a fine too?

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

It's punative though. £170k fine for being a !!!!!!!! is excessive.

The problem is Mikey72, that if there were no consequence to making a fraudulent excessive claim (on the basis that the true claim would be paid anyway), then these Money Saving boards would be rife with people like you, complaining that insurers arent doing enough to combat fraud, and that the genuine policyholder is being fleeced.

You cant have it both ways.

I dont have a detailed insight into this particular case, but it would seem that the policyholder inflated the claim, to cover the cover the cost of his project management.

On the face of it, it doesnt seem massively unreasonable, except that it would appear that he went about it in a rather surreptitious way, leading the insurer to cite fraud.

There has been a judicial process (i.e it went to court), and I know that you are a big fan of every unhappy policyholder seeking legal review (including the FOS).

I am therefore assuming Mikey72 that you are celebrating this outcome, on the basis that:

- The honest policyholder has been protected
- The case has been reviewed in court

Oh wait. No. I am forgetting that your anti-insurance and misguided mindset requires the insurer always to be in the wrong!!!

DM.