Before you buy house insurance on price alone read this

mic200202

Sorry pal heres what you posted to start with..

"Surely that only applies if the claim is less than the correct sum insured?

ie sum insured £60k actual rebuild cost £100k actual damage claim £50k actual payout £30k

so, your punter, being under insured by 60% would have got 40% of the claim value or £60k which ever was the smaller.

On a total loss like you describe she'd have got the full £60k

And that's before you start thinking about the liability/fairness issues surrounding a punter who took out cover based on the figures given in the survey report, it's why the FOS exists and why surveyors have PI insurance."

So thats what you stated.Insurer would just pay out full stop.Next you posted about the FOS.Thats what I mean.First of all its black and white as far as your're concerned,now we have to leave to the FOS,who would do right by the customer.

Which in effect means we are way past just a black and white decision from an insurer.

And the guidance notes the FOS provided here does not prove anything.You have merely put your own interpretation on the guidance.I do not and will not pretend that I can speak for the FOS in a public forum (as you have seemingly tried to).

The surveyor DID NOT recommend a client to take out a policy.Nobody said that.In my OP the client would have bought it without advice.

The FOS note are guidance notes for 2 case studies not defacto rules that are applied across the board.Why does the FOS include the sentence that reads "We will support those insurers which reduce payments to policyholders where the total sum insured is clearly quite inadequate to cover the property at risk." ? Still all so clear cut? Honestly.

As your're obviously in the business or was in the business,why don't you call up one of your old insurance buddies and ask them if they would pay up without a quibble.Then refer them to guidance notes from 2001,since they are so clear and uniquivocal.Bet I know the answer.

But regardless you have decided to go down a route that again misses the point of my OP.This was to advise consumers of the dangers of choosing a policy that asks them, or in some cases pre selects, a sum insured for them to decide is adequate.This can lead to potential problems.

When advising a customer I would really prefer not to put forward my opinion as to what the FOS may or may do if they are up the creek.Much better to actually do the job right to start off with hence the OP.

Where would the liability lie with if my customer had obtained her original policy? Interesting point.But in a way that is exactly what I was getting at in my OP.Don't put the customer in that position in the first place.

Your arrogance in boasting how much more business you have conducted ( I assume some time ago otherwise you would sign in using an industry disclosure) than me when you know nothing about me or the type of business I do is quite pathetic.

As far as digging a hole for myself, I stand by my OP.You have not proven your case.Instead you have merely muddied the waters.

You may have assumed I would be intimidated by yourself and a few other armchair generals on here who want to rule the roost.But I'm afraid you picked the wrong man.

dacouch

mic200202 wrote: »

Sorry pal heres what you posted to start with..

"Surely that only applies if the claim is less than the correct sum insured?

ie sum insured £60k actual rebuild cost £100k actual damage claim £50k actual payout £30k

so, your punter, being under insured by 60% would have got 40% of the claim value or £60k which ever was the smaller.

On a total loss like you describe she'd have got the full £60k

And that's before you start thinking about the liability/fairness issues surrounding a punter who took out cover based on the figures given in the survey report, it's why the FOS exists and why surveyors have PI insurance."

So thats what you stated.Insurer would just pay out full stop.Next you posted about the FOS.Thats what I mean.First of all its black and white as far as your're concerned,now we have to leave to the FOS,who would do right by the customer.

Which in effect means we are way past just a black and white decision from an insurer.

And the guidance notes the FOS provided here does not prove anything.You have merely put your own interpretation on the guidance.I do not and will not pretend that I can speak for the FOS in a public forum (as you have seemingly tried to).

The surveyor DID NOT recommend a client to take out a policy.Nobody said that.In my OP the client would have bought it without advice.

The FOS note are guidance notes for 2 case studies not defacto rules that are applied across the board.Why does the FOS include the sentence that reads "We will support those insurers which reduce payments to policyholders where the total sum insured is clearly quite inadequate to cover the property at risk." ? Still all so clear cut? Honestly.

As your're obviously in the business or was in the business,why don't you call up one of your old insurance buddies and ask them if they would pay up without a quibble.Then refer them to guidance notes from 2001,since they are so clear and uniquivocal.Bet I know the answer.

But regardless you have decided to go down a route that again misses the point of my OP.This was to advise consumers of the dangers of choosing a policy that asks them, or in some cases pre selects, a sum insured for them to decide is adequate.This can lead to potential problems.

When advising a customer I would really prefer not to put forward my opinion as to what the FOS may or may do if they are up the creek.Much better to actually do the job right to start off with hence the OP.

Where would the liability lie with if my customer had obtained her original policy? Interesting point.But in a way that is exactly what I was getting at in my OP.Don't put the customer in that position in the first place.

Your arrogance in boasting how much more business you have conducted ( I assume some time ago otherwise you would sign in using an industry disclosure) than me when you know nothing about me or the type of business I do is quite pathetic.

As far as digging a hole for myself, I stand by my OP.You have not proven your case.Instead you have merely muddied the waters.

You may have assumed I would be intimidated by yourself and a few other armchair generals on here who want to rule the roost.But I'm afraid you picked the wrong man.

Your attention to detail amazes me, you can't even quote the correct person. It's the second time you have quoted someone else, which that person even pointed out and you still persist with confusing me with someone else.

Hopefully you're accuracy when dealing with your own client's affairs is not so deficient.

FlameCloud

mic200202 wrote: »

The FOS note are guidance notes for 2 case studies not defacto rules that are applied across the board.Why does the FOS include the sentence that reads "We will support those insurers which reduce payments to policyholders where the total sum insured is clearly quite inadequate to cover the property at risk." ? Still all so clear cut? Honestly.

.

In this situation the insurer would need to demonstrate to the FOS that the policy holder knew the sum insured was clearly inadequate. I'd love to see that, if they had a surveyors report detailing what the rebuild cost should be.

As had been pointed out to you, the FOS view policy holders in essence as children. If they have professional advice telling them to do one thing they would expect the policy holder, like all reasonable people would, to follow that advice.

This would be even more true if it were the mortgage arm of the insurer that provided the original rebuild cost.

I do think your message (check what you buy and dont buy the cheapest) is very sensible, however it has many flaws in it.

dacouch

FlameCloud wrote: »

In this situation the insurer would need to demonstrate to the FOS that the policy holder knew the sum insured was clearly inadequate. I'd love to see that, if they had a surveyors report detailing what the rebuild cost should be.

As had been pointed out to you, the FOS view policy holders in essence as children. If they have professional advice telling them to do one thing they would expect the policy holder, like all reasonable people would, to follow that advice.

This would be even more true if it were the mortgage arm of the insurer that provided the original rebuild cost.

I do think your message (check what you buy and dont buy the cheapest) is very sensible, however it has many flaws in it.

Oh no...not another armchair expert / general lol