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

vaio

visidigi wrote: »

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.........

Nope, I think strictly speaking the driver is claimed against, the policy is required to indemnify the driver when a court judgement is obtained.

Obviously if liability is clear then actually getting a judgement would be a waste of time & money so isn't done in most cases.

visidigi wrote: »

....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.

Nothing wrong with using dad as a cheaper policy holder as long as the questions are answered honestly. Specifically the main driver and NCB ones. Hopefully the OP will return and clarify.

pinkshoes

yani2k9 wrote: »

INSURANCE CANCELLED FOLLOWING CLAIM

Hello guys!

I've found myself in a bit of a conundrum with my insurance company, and desperately need some advice. Please bear with me as it's a pretty long story - I will try to explain it the best as I could.

Over 2 and a half months ago, on 12th May 2013, I was involved in a car accident, about two weeks after I purchased the car. I was fully insured with a comprehensive policy provided by Eco Insurance (Co-Operative) with my father as the policy holder and myself as an additional driver.

The insurance companies and the police concluded that the accident was my fault so I was viable for all damages. At the time, this was horrible news but at least all parties were insured and we thought all would be ok.

Rang up the insurance company to file the claim, they decided the car is to be written off and collected it within a couple of days, and everything seemed to be running smoothly.

Two days later we received from Eco Insurance asking us to explain why we declared my father as the registered keeper of the vehicle, when in fact the car was under my name. We responded immediately and explained the situation as follows: The 'new owner' part of the V5 document was filled out by the seller of the vehicle, who mistakenly entered my details for new owner, as I was the one handing over the cash to him. Also, the insurance policy documents and the new log book arrived after the accident took place, so we were unaware of these discrepancies. After we responded to this concern, the issue was never raised until 2 months after.

After this, we spoke to the insurance company on several occasions to ensure that the claim is moving forward normally, and whether they needed any additional information. On two separate occasions when speaking to the claims department, we were reassured that everything was fine and that the value of the car will be paid out to us within a week, providing that we send evidence of financial interesticon in the cars (i.e. bank statement and sales contract). We reacted immediately and sent the required evidence on the next day. This was on the 14th July.

Four days later, on the 18th July, we received the most disturbing letter yet. "In view of your failure to correctly respond to the question/assumption regarding registered keeper of the Seat Ibiza, we must treat this insurance as void from the inception date of 30th April 2013." So in essence, the entire situation is now being treated as me being uninsured and I've become viable for all 3rd party claims (including a claim injury filed by my best friend, who was a passenger in my car and got injured).

I feel that this decision made by the insurer is completely unjustified, and unethical to say the least. We responded to all their queries, provided all the information they required, paid all monthly instalments diligently, cooperated with all their instructions, and now they're clinging on to the most pathetic reason as an excuse to cancel the policy and refuse liability. Simply a small discrepancy/technicality which wasn't even intentional.

For a whole week we were on the phone to Eco Insurance, trying to resolve this but all we got from the other end were arrogant customer service advisors (and supervisors), barking quotes from their terms and conditions, with absolutely no desire to help. They just wanted to get rid of us, even if the manner they did it in was completely unwarranted and immoral. We tried to rationalise with them and explain that who the car is registered to had absolutely no impact on the insurance nor the claim but it is very difficult to reason with people just plain simply do not care. We are literally being bullied into accepting liability for something that the insurer should be responsible for, and whatever we say to them is being rejected.

We have no idea what to do. We don't have the financial means to be able to afford a solicitor to handle the case, and we sure as hell can't afford to pay for the 3rd party claims, which I imagine would be in the thousands.

If anyone has previous experience with similar situations, and/or is competent with the laws surrounding motor insurance providers, I would really really appreciate some advise - this is our last hope!

I appreciate you reading the entire description, and I wish you a good day!

Many thanks in advance!

As other have said, I'm afraid this is called "fronting" (getting cheaper insurance by getting a more experienced driver to put themselves as the main driver).

The fact is that YOU bought the car, YOU paid for it, which meant that YOU needed to be the main person on the insurance, even if this cost a lot more!

I don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on in this case, but as your dad is the policy holder, he may want to take legal advice on this, as if he's got assets such as a house or his own car is worth anything, he may have to sell those to pay the debt.

Sounds like a nasty crash, so the injury payment probably be £5k (even basic whiplash gets about £2500!!), then there's the cost of your car (how much was it??), then any other damages i.e. road signs, other vehicles etc...

yani2k9

Thank you all for your input.

I haven't left the threat, it's just that I'm at work at the moment and cannot respond to all questions.

I will address everything as soon as I am home.

Again, thank you all!

arcon5

yani2k9 wrote: »

Thank you all for your input.

I haven't left the threat, it's just that I'm at work at the moment and cannot respond to all questions.

I will address everything as soon as I am home.

Again, thank you all!

A lot of people jump on the defensive in posts like this or simply don't return if the answers are not to their liking... so fair play to you for coming back

yani2k9

arcon5 wrote: »

A lot of people jump on the defensive in posts like this or simply don't return if the answers are not to their liking... so fair play to you for coming back

Thank you, kind sir

I know it's a very messy situation, but I guess we'll just have to deal with it, no going back now unfortunately..

I finish at 6.30, will respond to everything as soon as I'm home

timbstoke

arcon5 wrote: »

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

The certainly can do this. Had they been given the full facts, they would have declined to provide cover at the quoted price. Therefore, they are entitled to claim any costs arising from the fraudulent policy back from the policyholder.

dacouch

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.

Or if they've acted fraudulently when taking out the policy...

dacouch

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.

Durrant v MacLaren and Adams v Dunne

arcon5

timbstoke wrote: »

The certainly can do this. Had they been given the full facts, they would have declined to provide cover at the quoted price. Therefore, they are entitled to claim any costs arising from the fraudulent policy back from the policyholder.

The third party claim isn't the result of the fraudulent claim though. The damages resulting from incorrect information is the difference in premium.

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

The third party claim isn't the result of the fraudulent claim though. The damages resulting from incorrect information is the difference in premium.

Techinically if the non disclosure is "Deliberate" / "Fraudulent" the Insurer can retain the entire premium.