Motor Insurance dilemma

bartlenoir

I got what looks like a reasonable renewal quote from my insurance company
I'm 65 and thinking about retirement but nothings decided as yet
I put my details into gocompare and the cheapest quote was about 25% dearer than my renewal and that of my present insurer was even greater.
I ran quotes as being employed and being retired and the results were about the same
I'm a little reluctant about mentioning retirement to my company not knowing what effect it may have
Can anyone advise?

Jack_Regan

Tell the truth and state your occupation. When it changes tell them.

mad_rich

You will have to let them know when you change employment status, otherwise you may find your insurance invalid.

I would go with the renewal quote from your current insurer, since it's so much cheaper than anything else and you (preumably) aren't certain you will retire anyway. But try to find out the costs of cancellation. That way, if you retire in the next 12 months and don't like their increase in premium, you know what it will cost to jump ship.

forgotmyname

Have an accident in the day time and they will wonder why you were not at work.

A few calls later and your labelled a fraudster with no payout and a cancelled policy to declare.

Years back the chances of being caught were slim but it happens all too often these days.

Vicmeldrew

mad_rich wrote: »

You will have to let them know when you change employment status, otherwise you may find your insurance invalid.

I would go with the renewal quote from your current insurer, since it's so much cheaper than anything else and you (preumably) aren't certain you will retire anyway. But try to find out the costs of cancellation. That way, if you retire in the next 12 months and don't like their increase in premium, you know what it will cost to jump ship.

I would suggest that's a complete misconception.


The risk is accepted 'as is' at the time of inception. The policyholder has no obligation after inception. The indemnity has been accepted.

For example, the following is a paragraph lifted from a recent government review int the efficacy of insurance:

• UK law does not recognise an on-going duty of disclosure in the absence of a specific contract term. Even if the contract does include a notification clause, the UK courts will interpret it restrictively. For example, there is doubt over the effect of a term requiring the policyholder to inform the insurer if premises are left unoccupied. The issue is more clearly addressed through an exclusion, by which the policy excludes unoccupied premises unless the parties agree a variation.
  

dacouch

Vicmeldrew wrote: »

I would suggest that's a complete misconception.


The risk is accepted 'as is' at the time of inception. The policyholder has no obligation after inception. The indemnity has been accepted.

For example, the following is a paragraph lifted from a recent government review int the efficacy of insurance:

• UK law does not recognise an on-going duty of disclosure in the absence of a specific contract term. Even if the contract does include a notification clause, the UK courts will interpret it restrictively. For example, there is doubt over the effect of a term requiring the policyholder to inform the insurer if premises are left unoccupied. The issue is more clearly addressed through an exclusion, by which the policy excludes unoccupied premises unless the parties agree a variation.
  

Here's Direct Line's "specific contract term"

"You must tell us as soon as possible if any of the following details change:
• the address where you normally keep your car;
• if you, or anyone covered by this policy change jobs, including part time.
Any change during the period of insurance may result in an additional or
return premium and may be subject to an administration fee. See general
condition 4 for further details"

Strider590

OP do you realise that the insurance comparison sites are owned by insurance companies?

For example, confused.com is owned by EUI ltd, who in turn own Admiral, Diamond, Bell and Elephant. Guess which companies come out as the cheapest when searching?

Vicmeldrew

dacouch wrote: »

Here's Direct Line's "specific contract term"

"You must tell us as soon as possible if any of the following details change:
• the address where you normally keep your car;
• if you, or anyone covered by this policy change jobs, including part time.
Any change during the period of insurance may result in an additional or
return premium and may be subject to an administration fee. See general
condition 4 for further details"

Re-read above. You seem to have misunderstood.

dacouch

Vicmeldrew wrote: »

Re-read above. You seem to have misunderstood.

Your link basically states they do not expect a policyholder to declare changes in the risk unless there is a clause in policy requiring notification. In which case they will interpret it restrictively.

They give an example of a specific potential notification that might be requested by the Insurer but state they feel it would be better dealt with by the policy excluding the risk.

Bearing in mind the above and your link, do you think a court would expect the Insurer to accept a client as say a civil servant but include an exclusion on cover if they ever become retired? The Insurer asks to be notified of changes in occupation mid term and the your link would almost certainly mean a court would side with the Insurer

Vicmeldrew

dacouch wrote: »

Your link basically states they do not expect a policyholder to declare changes in the risk unless there is a clause in policy requiring notification. In which case they will interpret it restrictively.

They give an example of a specific potential notification that might be requested by the Insurer but state they feel it would be better dealt with by the policy excluding the risk.

Bearing in mind the above and your link, do you think a court would expect the Insurer to accept a client as say a civil servant but include an exclusion on cover if they ever become retired? The Insurer asks to be notified of changes in occupation mid term and the your link would almost certainly mean a court would side with the Insurer

No it doesn't, it states that the court will interpret it restrictively where there is one.


And yes, if he decides to retire after inception then the court would interpret it that they accepted the risk as it was.

dacouch

Vicmeldrew wrote: »

No it doesn't, it states that the court will interpret it restrictively where there is one.


And yes, if he decides to retire after inception then the court would interpret it that they accepted the risk as it was.

You must be reading a different link to the one you posted up.