Pathetic Aviva Scrape the Barrel

hugoshavez

I think it's important to note here that the claimant was not party to the contract, and so not subject to the conditions of the policy.

I'd be very surprised if this case was cited in any judgement in a case where a policyholder was acknowledged to have acted fraudulently.

vaio

Can't see what difference being policy holder or third party claimant makes.

Seems to me the principle they have established is that if a part of a claim is ruled as exaggerated/fraudulent then it doesn't mean the whole claim can be denied.

This puts punters on the same footing as insurers who wrongly deny part or all of a claim in that only the disputed part is affected

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

Can't see what difference being policy holder or third party claimant makes.

It makes all the difference as contract law and tort are two totally disctinct areas of law.

vaio

yep, but surely once the principle has been established that a fraudulent/exaggerated part of a claim doesn't result in the undisputed bits being forfeited too then it follows that any contract term that seeks to make the whole claim forfeit would automatically be an unfair term (at least as far as contracts involving "consumers" are concerned)?

if it doesn't then you get the ridiculous situation where, if I exaggerate part of a claim on my own policy then I lose the whole claim whereas if submit exactly the same claim but against someone else's policy I only lose the disputed part

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

But isn't that exactly the position the insurance companies are in?

They wrongly deny all or part of a claim and it gets turned over by FOS/court then all they have to do is pay what they should have paid initially.

Seem to me this judgement goes some way towards levelling the playing field

Or go the other way, any upheld complaint to the FOS, like the frequent one of car valuation if it is found the insurer has pitched too low, carries a massive punative fine. Instead of just making the insurer pay the amount they should have done in the first place.

vaio

yep, that would get my vote

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2989822

rs65

From the insurance times:-

The supreme court said it does have jurisdiction to strike out such claims but had simply declined to do so in this instance.
This could mean other insurers in the future will be successful in throwing out entire claims when parts of them are fraudulent.

Tirian

mikey72 wrote: »

Or go the other way, any upheld complaint to the FOS, like the frequent one of car valuation if it is found the insurer has pitched too low, carries a massive punative fine. Instead of just making the insurer pay the amount they should have done in the first place.

Um, any complaint to FOS results in an automatic £500 fee to the company regardless of whether the complaint is upheld or not - that amounts to a fairly punitive regime for anyone who generates a significant number of complaints.

rs65

Incorrect.

Fewer than one in six initial complaints and enquiries become chargeable. Even then, the first 3 against any one firm a year are not charged.

mikey72

Tirian wrote: »

Um, any complaint to FOS results in an automatic £500 fee to the company regardless of whether the complaint is upheld or not - that amounts to a fairly punitive regime for anyone who generates a significant number of complaints.

Re-read vaio's link.