My car was stolen, do I have to pay off the premium?

custardy

property.advert wrote: »

It is a bloody con.

Whatever the legalese, they insured you for a year. The premium you paid is a combination of risk factors, only one of which is total loss.

For example, following a total loss, there is zero chance of your giving rise to a claim by a third party for an unknown amount and yet they are asking you pay a premium to cover that risk.

You could also cause a claim worth millions but if your vehicle was not a total loss, they would have to continue to cover you for that year.

To my mind, that is immoral if not unlawful. I guess there is some case law on this from a long time ago but is Which? and the consumer groups here to fight the common cause ?

Also, if young drivers are blamed for all manner of things causing our premiums to rise exponentially, why is there not a company who simply states that they will not insure anyone under 30 for instance and then reward everyone with cheap insurance ?

when you make a claim,you are using the service the premium covered

Tirian

property.advert wrote: »

For example, following a total loss, there is zero chance of your giving rise to a claim by a third party for an unknown amount and yet they are asking you pay a premium to cover that risk.

Three things - first, they are not asking you to pay that premium now. That premium was already paid at the beginning of they year. They are asking for repayment of the loan.

Second, at the point at which the premium is paid, there is no way that they can know who is going to suffer a total loss at some point and who isn't - so there is no way of discounting the premium in the way that you describe.

THird, if the insurer is will continue the cover for the replacement car then there is not a zero chance of giving rise to such a claim in any case.

Best course of action to me seems likely to be cancel the Aviva policy during the cooling off period and amend the old policy to cover the new car.

thenudeone

vaio wrote: »

yep, but he also bought a policy that, among other things would cover him against third party risks for 12 months. If the insurers are to be believed then the theft part of a policy is only a small part of the premium so the logic/fairness of the whole contract coming to an end (with no refund) on a theft pay out is certainly arguable and probably flawed.

My home insurance covers me for theft (among other things). Are you seriously suggesting that my entire policy ends if I make a claim for a stolen lawnmower?

Of course not, but you're ignoring a major difference between a motor policy and a home contents claim.

A motor policy usually covers the insured for comprehensive and third party risks whilst driving a specific vehicle (and sometimes 3rd party cover for other vehicles as well).

If the policyholder accepts a payment from the insurers on the basis that he'll never again have possession of his car, the insurer's risk (both to the policyholder for the cost of the car, and to third parties for any future driving incidents) has ended completely.
As far as Driving Other Cars is concerned, most policies specifically state that DOC cover is only valid as long as you still have your own vehicle and it hasn't been the subject of a total loss incident.
eg: see page 11 on this policy http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf

The reason that a home contents policy doesn't end when you claim is that the policy usually covers many different unlisted items for several types of risk - theft, fire, flood, storm damage, accidental damage, credit card fraud, and so on.

Even if the contents of your home were all stolen, some of the policy risks would still be present for the remainder of the policy year. So the policy continues.

If you buy a motor policy covering every vehicle you own or lease (such as a typical business fleet cover), then that policy also carries on even if you make a total loss claim, because the policy risk hasn't ended.

notanewuser

property.advert wrote: »

Also, if young drivers are blamed for all manner of things causing our premiums to rise exponentially, why is there not a company who simply states that they will not insure anyone under 30 for instance and then reward everyone with cheap insurance ?

Saga don't insure under 50s. Churchill used to be over 30 only.