DAS - Insurance Cheats?

NetalBeattie

I have been with Endsleigh Insurance for years. Their legal expenses cover is underwritten by DAS. I also have employment insurance underwritten by them through my professional body.

I have made a number of claims to DAS under these policies. On every occasions DAS written back to me to say I am not covered.

Having an LLM degree I know that to have a contract all you need offer, acceptance and consideration. That is; you needed to have been offered something in exchange for something else and both agreed to it. So in one case DAS said because I did not have a (written) contract with my employer then DAS couldn't help me. However I was able to prove I had an oral contract so they had to assist.

Most recently they are saying that they cannot cover a contract I had with a service provider - where that provider is refusing to provide what we agreed - because no money changed hands.

Has anyone else had problems with DAS getting out of underwriting their claim? I expect there will be many people who lack the legal knowledge I have whom will fall for what I see as dirty tricks that rely on people's naiveties. In my view DAS are cheats, and I would like to know if others feel the same.

InsideInsurance

Never had a policy underwritten by DAS, though have had ones where they do some claims administrations.

Certainly in other contracts the killer clause is normally "we judge it to have reasonable prospects of success". By having no paper contract or not having proof of consideration they may argue that they feel that you dont have sufficient prospects of success

Ultimately log a formal complaint, they are an insurer and so it can be escalated to the FOS if you arent happy with their response

Crazy_Jamie

It is a very common term of legal expenses policies that in order to be covered the case must have reasonable prospects of success, and that is certainly a term that DAS policies include. As InsideInsurance has said, there's certainly seems to be grounds in both cases to say that you do not have reasonable prospects of success, and therefore for DAS to refuse to cover you. Knowing the law is one thing, proving your claim on the basis of the evidence is quite another. I don't know the full facts of either case, but certainly on the basis of what you've said it sounds perfectly possible that DAS have acted reasonably and in line with the terms of your policy.

thenudeone

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I don't know the full facts of either case, but certainly on the basis of what you've said it sounds perfectly possible that DAS have acted reasonably and in line with the terms of your policy.

How have you come to that conclusion?

For a contract to exist, it is not a requirement that payment has take place, merely that the agreement includes some form of consideration on both sides, usually - I will pay you £xxx for the provision of XXX service or for delivery of XXX goods. Once all the main points are agreed, a contract exists and can be enforced.

As long as the service provider was contracted directly with the policyholder, I can't see any reason why a claim should fail. Trying to claim against a third party service provider where there is no direct contract (eg BT Openreach, for a failed broadband installation) would undoubtedly be more difficult.

BertTheRaccoon

Some contract law does not apply to insurance contracts, such as The Unfair Contract Terms Act etc.

Insurers by and large are there for their share holders and nobody else. End of.

Crazy_Jamie

thenudeone wrote: »

How have you come to that conclusion?

For a contract to exist, it is not a requirement that payment has take place, merely that the agreement includes some form of consideration on both sides, usually - I will pay you £xxx for the provision of XXX service or for delivery of XXX goods. Once all the main points are agreed, a contract exists and can be enforced.

As long as the service provider was contracted directly with the policyholder, I can't see any reason why a claim should fail. Trying to claim against a third party service provider where there is no direct contract (eg BT Openreach, for a failed broadband installation) would undoubtedly be more difficult.

I know what the law is, but that is not the concern of the LEI provider. The issue is whether or not a claim can be proved on the balance of probabilities. If there are no reasonable prospects of success, then DAS do not have to fund the claim. All I'm saying is that on the basis of what he has stated I can see how the decision taken by DAS may be reasonable. I'd obviously need to know an awful lot more about each in order to put forward a more definitive opinion than that.

Captain_Shambolic

Certainly companies I've worked for in the past have said that they need 51% chance of success to take a case and as others have said we'd need to see the case facts in front of us but it more sounds like they've judged the case to not have a reasonable chance of success and rejected it on that basis.

Mungo76

Yep, it'll all be on reasonable prospects, 51% or over. It'll be nice and big in the policy wording. DAS would have obtained a solicitors opinion, if you beleive there are better prospects, it's now up to you to provide an opinion to counter it. An understanding of law of the why's and what's of a contract are irrelevant if the prospects are not good enough.

Buzby

DAS are no worse or better than an other chargeable underwriting service. I used to get it when it was £6pa and my broker provided a slip saying in case of a claim, call their dedicated helpline. It seemed a good idea.

When it went up to £10.00 I called a halt. I then discovered the brokers only paid over £5 to DAS, so it was more a bolt on to the brokers bottom line.

I ended up being hit - but found a local solicitor prepared to pursue the other driver, for free. It made DAS's service appear expensive... And needless!

BertTheRaccoon

Most motor legal expenses policies are either given to the broker free of charge by the underwriters or at the most, cost the broker about 50p/ policy. They then sell this to the punter for £20+.

A broker moving 3000 units a month at £20 a pop having paid £1500 for those units would make a nice profit of £58500.00

There is more gravy for the selling of the "add-ons" than the actual motor policy itself.

Family Legal Protection policies that come with household insurance generally cover more risks and situations and are worth considering, but as is evidenced by the original subject of this thread, they still don't always want to play ball

rs65

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

would make a nice profit of £58500.00

I think you mean income.