Trying to get Insurance when been refused previously

TheGame21

I need some advice as I'm helping my Father in Law with this landlord insurance. He has a policy which is currently invalid as he has been refused insurance previously from a provider and the terms and conditions of the current policy state that you need to disclose if been refused. The current policy is through some broker who has been taking his money yet taking out an invalid insurance. It is up for renewal and so I'm going about getting a new quote. I will be disclosing the refusal with the new provider however what are the implications of this? Does it mean it will be difficult to get insurance? I'm also not sure about why he got refused however by the sounds of it, it was for non disclosure.

rs65

I think you will need to confirm the reason for the original refusal before you can help him.

Does his current broker know about the original refusal?

TheGame21

rs65 wrote: »

I think you will need to confirm the reason for the original refusal before you can help him.

Does his current broker know about the original refusal?

The broker is not very good and has taken the insurance out despite the refusal. Apparently this happened a couple of years ago and the invalid policy has been renewed since then. How will this affect me with the new policy?

rs65

TheGame21 wrote: »

The broker is not very good and has taken the insurance out despite the refusal. Apparently this happened a couple of years ago and the invalid policy has been renewed since then. How will this affect me with the new policy?

Is it possible that the broker did disclose the previous refusal when effecting the current policy?

chanz4

refused to renew or refused to insure...

hugoshavez

Post #4 reported

hugoshavez

You seem a little confused OP.

Cover wouldn't be refused for non-disclosure, but a policy could be made void. Alternatively, an insurer could pay a claim, but decline to offer renewal. This is a serious issue for personal/landlord's insurance, so you really need to try to find out the exact details.

I'd visit the broker and ask him to explain clearly what issue arose, and on what basis the cover has been arranged since.

It'll be difficult for anyone on here to advise without a clearer understanding than you currently have.

TheGame21

Just got some more details, it was for non disclosure. A claim was made, the insurance company refused it as on the renewal a previous claim wasn't disclosed and the insurance was cancelled. The Broker has taken another policy out however has not disclosed any of this on the current policy which has been running for two years. Therefore this policy is not valid.

The other issue which I've now discovered is that the insurance is for a semi commercial property, half shop, half house. I've done a quote for landlord insurance through compare the market however got no quote and then rang the number. They took some details and will ring me tomorrow. However I've discovered semi commercial property might be difficult to get insurance for. Anyone have any views?

hugoshavez

TheGame21 wrote: »

Just got some more details, it was for non disclosure. A claim was made, the insurance company refused it as on the renewal a previous claim wasn't disclosed and the insurance was cancelled. The Broker has taken another policy out however has not disclosed any of this on the current policy which has been running for two years. Therefore this policy is not valid.

The other issue which I've now discovered is that the insurance is for a semi commercial property, half shop, half house. I've done a quote for landlord insurance through compare the market however got no quote and then rang the number. They took some details and will ring me tomorrow. However I've discovered semi commercial property might be difficult to get insurance for. Anyone have any views?

Are you saying that (a)the property to be insured is a shop and attached residence? Or (b) that the cover that's currently in place was wrongly arranged for that situation?

If what you've said is right, the broker has clearly been acting negligently or unscrupulously. There are a couple of things to consider though.

The policy in place isn't automatically void because of the non-disclosure. The insurer may potentially have the option to declare it void if they discover it. If a claim arose and they did declare it void, your father-in-law would potentially have an actionable claim against the broker.

If (b) above is correct though, the policy could be automatically be void for mistake. Uncommon, but technically possible it means there has been no contract formed because there wasn't a true understanding on both sides of the subject matter of the insurance.

In practical terms you're doing the right thing in looking to get a new policy in place right away. A reputable broker should easily be able to find reasonably priced cover while disclosing the previous issue; it's not insurmountable.

Whether you want to push for a premium refund for the negligently arranged cover is a tricky one, and will depend on whether the above answer is a or b, among other things.

Can you answer that? And also let us know how you found out about this, and who suggested the current policy is "invalid" ?

TheGame21

hugoshavez wrote: »

Are you saying that (a)the property to be insured is a shop and attached residence? Or (b) that the cover that's currently in place was wrongly arranged for that situation?

If what you've said is right, the broker has clearly been acting negligently or unscrupulously. There are a couple of things to consider though.

The policy in place isn't automatically void because of the non-disclosure. The insurer may potentially have the option to declare it void if they discover it. If a claim arose and they did declare it void, your father-in-law would potentially have an actionable claim against the broker.

If (b) above is correct though, the policy could be automatically be void for mistake. Uncommon, but technically possible it means there has been no contract formed because there wasn't a true understanding on both sides of the subject matter of the insurance.

In practical terms you're doing the right thing in looking to get a new policy in place right away. A reputable broker should easily be able to find reasonably priced cover while disclosing the previous issue; it's not insurmountable.

Whether you want to push for a premium refund for the negligently arranged cover is a tricky one, and will depend on whether the above answer is a or b, among other things.

Can you answer that? And also let us know how you found out about this, and who suggested the current policy is "invalid" ?

Thanks for your response, yes, (a) is correct, the property is a shop and attached residence, both have separate tenants. The cover currently in place is incorrect and has been arranged by the broker. I think it has been arranged so that the property is insured however looking closely it is pointless as the cover would be invalid having declared nothing of what has happened before.

This policy in place is different to the one that was cancelled. I don't think my father in law would like to take any action against this broker as he knows him however we both agreed that the best plan is to look for a new policy. I'm hoping something can be done by the phonecall from the Compare the Market people, and if not then we will have to look for a broker. Is there a common website to compare brokers?

I found out about this as the 'current pointless' policy is up for renewal and hence by looking for a new policy we have unearthed these new complications.

dacouch

How do you know the broker did not advise the Insurer of the void policy?

What sort of policy was the void policy eg personal home insurance?