After event insurance refuse to pay costs, can they do that ?

louisetinkerbell

Could someone please assist, I had a RTA in 2010 which has been ongoing as I suffered a injury. It has heard in court last month where the judge favored the other parties chain of events. I am not going to justify my loss but it was the most horrific experience of my life! It was "no win no fee" and a policy was taken out by the legal team for after event insurance to cover costs if I lost.
Well I lost but the insurance have cancelled their policy as they say I was dishonest !!!! This was never stated by the judge in his summary he just favored the other side as there was only a small amount of damage ( the other side damaged there car but that was repaired and I couldn't prove it as I didn't take pics). The legal team have written a complain for this to be reviewed at a higher level and it will go to the ombudsman but in the mean time there is a outstanding 9K to pay
I never thought this would happen in fact, after the hearing I was told that this wouldn't happen and it has. I have been informed that the insurance company had regular updates to my position and only after they have not removed the cover.
Could I have some advise as I am in a right state.

Prothet_of_Doom

So basically the Civil Court decided that on the balance of probabilities, that the other person's events were more believable.

BUt that isn't the same as being proved to have fabricated the whole thing. There just wasn't enough proof from your side.

Insurance Ombudsman would be my first suggestion.

louisetinkerbell

Yes that what happened, I have to say if i ever find my self in this position again I will NOT ever undertake this process ever again. I don't think the fact that I was a mess on the stand and the pictures given to the judge were terribly printed. In his eyes he couldn't see damage and wasn't even considering the engineer report. All this shouldn't go against me being dishonest should it ? I have asked for summaries to be sent to me but they do not indicate any fraud or dishonestly as I was not being either. I take it that insurance companies like to play games !

InsideInsurance

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Insurance Ombudsman would be my first suggestion.

The Insurance Ombudsman was replaced with the Financial Ombudsman Service over a decade ago.

To complain to the ombudsman you must have first complained to the insurer following their process and either had a response or waited 8 weeks.

The judge has evidently said what you claimed happened didnt because he ruled against you. He doesnt have to go as far to say that you are being dishonest for the ATE insurance not to cover it and it comes down to effectively if its believable that you were "mistaken" about what happened or that you had simply lied.

So a simple claim, narrow lane collision, you say both braked, both were still moving when the accident happened. TP says similar but that they'd managed to stop. Judge rules in favour of the TP but the ATE will almost certainly payout because its reasonable enough to say you thought they hadnt managed to stop either.

Same claim but the TP says their car was actually parked on the road at the time and they werent even in it. Judge rules in favour of the TP. This clearly would make your story that the TP was moving immediately prior to the case a fabrication and thus the ATE probably wouldnt cover even if the summary didnt go as far as stating you were lying as its implied by the fact they accept the car was parked an unattended at the time.

vaio

I'm inclined to think that any discrepancy big enough to cause a ATE policy not to pay should have been picked up long before it got anywhere near a court.

louisetinkerbell

Well the other side admitted making contact with my car and ever paid me damage costs prior to the proceedings which I have not been asked to pay back. So they admitted liability which wasn't he issuse. I agreed re picking things up prior which is where I am confused. Awaiting a review from their side in complains, which I will take further if required. Thank people for the advise its such a alien world which I won't be stepping into again.

OnanTheBarbarian

Sounds to me like the ATE insurer is just trying to dodge a bullet or the solicitors had not updated them of the case properly on the run up to trial.

Who is the ATE insurer out of interest?