car insurance - retrospective increase

antrobus

Aretnap wrote: »

Yes, but the act applies to misrepresentation generally. And it states (in section 4 (3)) that the only remedies for misrepresentation available to the insurer are those set out in Schedule 1. So where does Schedule 1 entitle an insurer to backdated premiums where no claim has been made? Or alternatively, where does the insurer's right to a remedy not included in Schedule 1 come from?

Cool. Somebody else gets it.:)

I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, but if you actually read the CI (DAR) Act 2012, it's quite clear from s4 that the "only such remedies available are set out in Schedule 1". The fact that in cases of "careless representation" Schedule 1 only lists remedies that relate to claims, would invite the conclusion that an insurer has no remedy unless there is a claim.

I might be inclined to ask a real solicitor type person if I thought the amount of money involved was worth arguing about.