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

dalesrider

yani2k9 wrote: »

For this policy, my dad was declared as the main driver.

The car was to be used by both of us equally but we wanted to utilise my father's NCB.

I think it's important to emphasise that we received the new log book and the policy documents AFTER the accident, so we were unaware of the fact that the car was registered under my name beforehand.

Ins co will look at this from the point of view YOU paid for the car. As such you are the legal owner. V5 just shows who is the registered keeper and therefor who fines etc get sent. NOT the legal owner of the car.

So what is on the V5 makes no difference to your case.

Therefor.
By saying you father was the main driver and using HIS NCB, but with you as a additional driver.

They can take no other view than fronting.

What you should have done is listed yourself as the MAIN driver and your father as the additional driver (makes for a good discount) and is legal.

TBH. Looking for a solicitor to take this forward is not going to help your case at all. The Ins co have made up their mind and even if you went all the way to FOS (or whoever now) I cannot see you getting the result you are looking for.

arcon5

timbstoke wrote: »

But consider it another way:

If OPs actions made the premium £1k, and the premium based on the correct information would have been £3k, OP may not have taken out the policy. If they hadn't taken the policy, they wouldn't have been allowed on the road, and the accident wouldn't have happened. In that sense, the accident IS a result of the wrongdoing, since only by taking out a fraudulent policy could the OP have afforded to have been on the road in the first place.

Sorry, but that's just not right. What if op went a different route and collided with a bus instead and killed 10 people; what if op slept in that morning, what running late and the accident never happened; so many what if scenarios, but none of which are really that important to the claim.

The accident simply is not a consequence of the fraudulently obtained policy.

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

Sorry, but that's just not right. What if op went a different route and collided with a bus instead and killed 10 people; what if op slept in that morning, what running late and the accident never happened; so many what if scenarios, but none of which are really that important to the claim.

The accident simply is not a consequence of the fraudulently obtained policy.

The accident is not a consequence of fraudulently obtaining the quote, however the consequences of fraudulently obtaining a quote are in the event of the accident the client will ultimately pay for the claim costs.

What is likely to happen is the Insurer will void the policy and put the OP/Father on notice that they will seek to recover their outlay from them.

If the father has assets such as a house they are likely to put a charge on the house if they cannot reimberse them in cash. In reality for a large claim the clients tend to declare themselves bankrupt which is what would typically happen in your example of a bus.

arcon5

If that is the case (which I highly dispute), the insurer should be offsetting any amounts paid towards the policy against any payout to third parties they try to claim from op.

Afterall they cannot have both, they either keep the policy fee and indemnify the policy holder (and pursue the difference in policy price had correct information been supplied) or they, as you say, void the policy and pursue losses only.

The third party losses or the accident are simply not a consequence of obtaining a cheaper quote, irrespective of what crazy spin is put on it.

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

If that is the case (which I highly dispute), the insurer should be offsetting any amounts paid towards the policy against any payout to third parties they try to claim from op.

Afterall they cannot have both, they either keep the policy fee and indemnify the policy holder (and pursue the difference in policy price had correct information been supplied) or they, as you say, void the policy and pursue losses only.

The third party losses or the accident are simply not a consequence of obtaining a cheaper quote, irrespective of what crazy spin is put on it.

In the case of a fraudulent / deliberate non disclosure the Insurer is entitled to retain the entire premium and does not have to offset it against any claims payments.

Many of the better Insurers agree with you and in these cases return the premium but would still seek to recover the claims outlay from deliberate people who deliberately non disclose . For obvious reasons Insurers look dimly on people who deliberately non disclose so it's fairly unusual for them to not try and attempt to recover their claims outlay

For a case of non deliberate non disclosure (See "Inadvertent") the Insurer would re write the policy on the basis they would have had they been given the correct information. This may mean an increase in the premium and / or increased excess etc etc or if they would not have accepted the business they would void the policy and return the premiums. The Insurer would then either collect the extra premium from the client or adjust the claims payment proportionately.

I'm not saying the third party losses are a consequence of the non disclosure. If the OP has acted deliberately he has "induced" the Insurer to enter into a contract they may not have entered into.

Insurance is based upon "Utmost good faith", you tell the Insurer the truth and pay the premium and in return they agree to pay valid claims.

The Ombudsmans pages guidance on non disclosure explain their position which is the industry standard.

Note

"Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy."

"Customers deliberately mislead the insurer if they dishonestly provide information they know to be untrue or incomplete. If the dishonesty is intended to deceive the insurer into giving them an advantage to which they are not entitled, then this is also a fraud and – strictly speaking – the insurance premium does not have to be returned."

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

tinkerbell28

arcon5 wrote: »

If that is the case (which I highly dispute), the insurer should be offsetting any amounts paid towards the policy against any payout to third parties they try to claim from op.

Afterall they cannot have both, they either keep the policy fee and indemnify the policy holder (and pursue the difference in policy price had correct information been supplied) or they, as you say, void the policy and pursue losses only.

The third party losses or the accident are simply not a consequence of obtaining a cheaper quote, irrespective of what crazy spin is put on it.

It doesn't work like that with insurance fraud. There is also the circumstance, that there may not be a correct policy price.

The insurers could've well refused a policy if applied for correctly. If ops premiums were so high as main driver they fronted. Not all mainstream insurers would take him.

yani2k9

Thanks indeed to everyone for all the info.

We'll write to the insurers and the ombudsman, hopefully that would accomplish something, but like most of you said, we are in the wrong so I'm not expecting miracles.

Any mods on here who could remove the thread please, unless there's a delete button somewhere I've missed?

martin2345uk

yani2k9 wrote: »

Any mods on here who could remove the thread please, unless there's a delete button somewhere I've missed?

I'm not sure they do that here...

dalesrider

yani2k9 wrote: »

Any mods on here who could remove the thread please, unless there's a delete button somewhere I've missed?

Why do you want this deleted.

It has good advice that will help people in the future.

Moved to the Ins forum would be a good idea.

arcon5

@dacouch

Okay, fair enough, it does seem you could be correct here.

Also found what the ombudsmen calls 'issue 41' which, in addition to what you've referred to, does support what you're saying.

It says

Insurers sometimes submit that a complainant’s fraud amounts to a breach of his/her continuing duty of good faith, thereby enabling the insurer to "avoid" the policy from its start (in other words, to treat the contract as though it had never existed). This means that the insurer not only cancels the policy from its start, it may also try to recover any monies previously paid out under the policy, even for genuine claims. And in cases of fraud, the insurer is not obliged to refund the premium(s).