Car Insurance Quotes - Diff in stating 'divorced' and 'Single'

System

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.

System

vaio wrote: »

Virgin is the only one you never get back

Oh No! I've been lied to again! I was told 10 years abstention and you qualify as virgin again

Boxer_Lover

lol ... thanks for the giggles .... still not sure what the 'ok' thing to do is after reading the rest of the messages but suppose I'll tell him to air on the side of caution and put divorced, the difference is about £30 but I'd hate for him to get stung over it ..... he's already been 'stung' BIG BIG time through the divorce and still doesn't get any better for him with access to his son ... so not worth the headache I suppose, I'll advise putting divorced ... but thank you all :-)

ronekenn

In my opinion, when choosing any insurance company, a person must disclose all the things to the company, which in his views can create problem later on, because its definite that if the company finds any unveiling thing, then he is going to have his policy canceled and regarding the cheap insurance company, there are many. So what if the person is divorced, he still can have the cheap insurance company. Only the thing is that he should compare the quotes of all the insurance companies he knows.

InsideInsurance

bryanb wrote: »

Not so! If an insurance company issues 3rd party cover they must honour it.

Yes so!

If there is insurance then they have a responsibility as the RTA insurer of the vehicle but they have the right to recover their outlay from the policyholder and/ or driver of their vehicle both under the RTA legislation and normally under the policy wording.

It is simply an interim step to stop third parties being out pocket or being forced into the MIB claims process.

If we were all able to get away without being out of pocket why would anyone bother telling the truth on their insurance?

dacouch

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Yes so!

If there is insurance then they have a responsibility as the RTA insurer of the vehicle but they have the right to recover their outlay from the policyholder and/ or driver of their vehicle both under the RTA legislation and normally under the policy wording.

It is simply an interim step to stop third parties being out pocket or being forced into the MIB claims process.

If we were all able to get away without being out of pocket why would anyone bother telling the truth on their insurance?

If I remember correctly, there are a few situations where the Insurer can not pay the third party claim. Hopefully Raskazz reads this as he will be able to quote them

InsideInsurance

There are a few where they wouldnt be RTA insurer or there may be more than one RTA insurer but in most cases for a policy being cancelled for fraud the insurer would still have its obligations if the driver fails to settle the claim or the insurer decides to be more pro-active and offers to settle the claim with the promise of reimbursement from the driver or policyholder thus avoiding court fees

vaio

RTA s152 gives the get outs from RTA

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/152

152 Exceptions to section 151.
(1)No sum is payable by an insurer under section 151 of this Act—
(a)in respect of any judgment unless, before or within seven days after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment was given, the insurer had notice of the bringing of the proceedings, or
(b)in respect of any judgment so long as execution on the judgment is stayed pending an appeal, or
(c)in connection with any liability if, before the happening of the event which was the cause of the death or bodily injury or damage to property giving rise to the liability, the policy or security was cancelled by mutual consent or by virtue of any provision contained in it, and also—
(i)before the happening of that event the certificate was surrendered to the insurer, or the person to whom the certificate was delivered made a statutory declaration stating that the certificate had been lost or destroyed, or
(ii)after the happening of that event, but before the expiration of a period of fourteen days from the taking effect of the cancellation of the policy or security, the certificate was surrendered to the insurer, or the person to whom it was delivered made a statutory declaration stating that the certificate had been lost or destroyed, or
(iii)either before or after the happening of that event, but within that period of fourteen days, the insurer has commenced proceedings under this Act in respect of the failure to surrender the certificate.

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, no sum is payable by an insurer under section 151 of this Act if, in an action commenced before, or within three months after, the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment was given, he has obtained a declaration—
(a)that, apart from any provision contained in the policy or security, he is entitled to avoid it on the ground that it was obtained—
(i)by the non-disclosure of a material fact, or
(ii)by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular, or
(b)if he has avoided the policy or security on that ground, that he was entitled so to do apart from any provision contained in it
[F1and, for the purposes of this section, “material” means of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions.].

(3)An insurer who has obtained such a declaration as is mentioned in subsection (2) above in an action does not by reason of that become entitled to the benefit of that subsection as respects any judgment obtained in proceedings commenced before the commencement of that action unless before, or within seven days after, the commencement of that action he has given notice of it to the person who is the plaintiff (or in Scotland pursuer) in those proceedings specifying the non-disclosure or false representation on which he proposes to rely.

(4)A person to whom notice of such an action is so given is entitled, if he thinks fit, to be made a party to it.

but I'm pretty sure there is an agreement between MIB & ABI that insurance companies will not avail themselves of it.

Thinking about it, that makes sense as it would require court action to avoid the RTA responsibilities and, if successful, the case would be moved to the MIB which is funded by the insurance companies so the net result would be the insurance industry would still be paying the claim but with the added expense and costs of the RTA case.

vic_sf49

I reckon the marital status question is about as accurate and useful as when they want your occupation.

If you don't list my occupation, and don't let me enter free text, then why bother asking for it. After having phoned insurers in the past, they just put you down as doing whatever they feel like at the time, making you feel like you're wasting your time answering some of the questions.