Insurance policy cancelled following claim. In desperate need of legal advice

visidigi

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

As I understand the situation. They can cancel the policy and mean they will not pay out to you for the car. However, they cannot absolve themselves of their third party liabilities because you make a false declaration on taking out the policy.

Correct. But they can then pursue the father for the costs associated with paying out to the third party.

Then there is the matter of the op bing treated as uninsured, fined and having 6 penalty points at least, which he will have to declare which will as a consequence seriously affect his insurance costs moving forward.

vaio

visidigi wrote: »

Correct. But they can then pursue the father for the costs associated with paying out to the third party.

Then there is the matter of the op bing treated as uninsured, fined and having 6 penalty points at least, which he will have to declare which will as a consequence seriously affect his insurance costs moving forward.

Surely if your first sentence is true then the second sentence can't be?

If dad's insurance pay out to the third parties then son was insured.

More generally, we still don't know who was declared as the main driver or whether dad had two sets of NCB

peachyprice

vaio wrote: »

Surely if your first sentence is true then the second sentence can't be?

If dad's insurance pay out to the third parties then son was insured.

I believe, but I may be wrong, that even if the policy is cancelled the insurance company are still legally obliged to pay out the 3rd party claim as if the policy were still in force.

After all, it isn't the thirst parties fault that the OP and his father are fraudsters.

arcon5

I'd question whether they can even claim third party losses. If anything the difference between the premium paid and what the premium would be if you didn't falsify the application. Could be wrong though.

vaio

peachyprice wrote: »

I believe, but I may be wrong, that even if the policy is cancelled the insurance company are still legally obliged to pay out the 3rd party claim as if the policy were still in force.

After all, it isn't the thirst parties fault that the OP and his father are fraudsters.

I think the insurer is obliged to pay because at the time of the incident there was a policy in force, so OP was insured.

The policy might have been fraudulent and there might well be consequences that follow from that but I don't think that a conviction for driving without insurance can be one of them

Mark_Hewitt

arcon5 wrote: »

I'd question whether they can even claim third party losses. If anything the difference between the premium paid and what the premium would be if you didn't falsify the application. Could be wrong though.

The only way third party losses could not be allowed is if the third party was at fault or if there was no insurance on the vehicle at all - i.e. it had not been purchased. Neither of these cases are true.

vaio

arcon5 wrote: »

I'd question whether they can even claim third party losses. If anything the difference between the premium paid and what the premium would be if you didn't falsify the application. Could be wrong though.

You are wrong. If there was a policy in force then RTA makes the insurer liable for third party claims.

Policy T&C might allow them to reclaim those costs from the policy holder if the policy was fraudulent but the insurer has to pay in the first instance

peachyprice

vaio wrote: »

I think the insurer is obliged to pay because at the time of the incident there was a policy in force, so OP was insured.

The policy might have been fraudulent and there might well be consequences that follow from that but I don't think that a conviction for driving without insurance can be one of them

Yes, that's what I thought. You worded your bold bit far better than me

visidigi

vaio wrote: »

Surely if your first sentence is true then the second sentence can't be?

If dad's insurance pay out to the third parties then son was insured.

More generally, we still don't know who was declared as the main driver or whether dad had two sets of NCB

The policy is claimed against, not the driver, the policy was in place at the time of the accident but was cancelled later. The policy holder is liable for the declaration at time of purchase.

The first post states the dad was the policy holder as it was cheaper, this implies they were not the primary driver but were only declared as such to make it cheaper.

arcon5

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

The only way third party losses could not be allowed is if the third party was at fault or if there was no insurance on the vehicle at all - i.e. it had not been purchased. Neither of these cases are true.

I'm not on about the third parties claim, i'm on about the suggestion the insurance company will try to recover everything they've paid out to third parties from the policy holder