Can car insurance be retrospectivley cancelled

euanT

My daughter has run into problems with Diamond ins regards a claim from three years back. details: Ex boyfriend driving has accident in her car, which is written off and third party damage Etc.
Two weeks after accident, during conference call with DVLA it transpires he had six penalty points on his license that she, or they did not know about. Diamond informed her that due to this ommission he would be removed from policy retrospectively( ie never on policy) and they would come after her personally for the costs, now around £20,000. As he was never charged for driving uninsured he was surely insured at time of the accident.
Can insurance company's simply remove a named driver as if he was never there, but not cancel the policy, which they did not.

Any help would be appreciated

shedhead55

I can understand the insurers refusing to pay for your daughters car but didn't think they could wriggle out of 3rd party claims that easily. IMHO your daughter really ought to take professional legal advice on this one.

dunstonh

This is an issue on non-disclosure.

Here is the FOS guide to how non-disclosure should be dealt with by firms:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

On very very very limited info in this case, I would expect the insurer to pay what is required but to then come after your daughter for the money IF they are treating it as intentional non-disclosure. If it was treated as accidental non-disclosure, then it is different and the info on the link explains the difference.

euanT

dunstonh wrote: »

This is an issue on non-disclosure.

Here is the FOS guide to how non-disclosure should be dealt with by firms:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

On very very very limited info in this case, I would expect the insurer to pay what is required but to then come after your daughter for the money IF they are treating it as intentional non-disclosure. If it was treated as accidental non-disclosure, then it is different and the info on the link explains the difference.

I would say in her case it would be accidental non-disclosure as her boyfriend(sorry Ex) lied to her when asked about this, so her statement to Diamond was true as far as she was concerned

Quentin

It's immaterial whether it was deliberate or not.

Your daughter now needs to pursue the liar for reimbursement.

mikey72

Quentin wrote: »

It's immaterial whether it was deliberate or not.

Your daughter now needs to pursue the liar for reimbursement.

It's very material if it's accidental nondisclosure, as in the link above.

vaio

As dunsonh says the difference between intentional & accidental non-disclosure is critical.

The only way this is going to have a less than really bad ending is if she can convince the insurer that the non disclosure was innocent or inadvertent on the basis that the ex BF told her he had a clean licence.

Ideally, she needs to be going for "innocent" as that mean they won't be coming after her for the £20k. "Inadvertent" means they might still come after her if the six points the BF had would have stopped then offering a policy at all.

euanT

Quentin wrote: »

It's immaterial whether it was deliberate or not.

Your daughter now needs to pursue the liar for reimbursement.

Why would one person with limited assets try to pursue anyone. large insurance company's could do the searching easily.

euanT

She also had to write a letter to them stating the details of the non disclosure and they replied Quote:"We will give you the benefit of doubt"
and then over two years later change their minds and come after her anyway

mikey72

euanT wrote: »

She also had to write a letter to them stating the details of the non disclosure and they replied Quote:"We will give you the benefit of doubt"
and then over two years later change their minds and come after her anyway

I think that's worth a call to the FOS. Whatever you do, don't let the letter out of your sight. Send copies if anyone wants to see it.

Quentin

euanT wrote: »

She also had to write a letter to them stating the details of the non disclosure and they replied Quote:"We will give you the benefit of doubt"
and then over two years later change their minds and come after her anyway

They have given her the benefit of the doubt - they didn't cancel her policy, which has saved her a lifetime of hassle and expense!! (A cancelled policy on your history has to be disclosed to all other insurers for ever, meaning you cannot buy off the peg insurance and have to use expensive policies designed for problem clients if you can find them)