Missold dual insurance

TROOD01

Please can someone advise me. My uncle recently died and I am dealing with his affairs. I have discovered that he has been paying dual building insurance for nearly 25 years. He was originally with Zurich because his property was ex-local authority and everyone knows that the freeholder of ex local authorities properties is the Council and the buildings insurance is arranged through them. This was the case when he took out his mortgage in 1987. Some time in 1989 the Prudential came along and he took out buildings insurance with them which has carried on until last month when I cancelled his policy when he died. I am so annoyed that he has been ripped off all these years. Does anyone know of the correct course that should be followed by the Prudential in these circumstances. They say they have no documentation to prove how far back it went and have so far not told me how they are going to resolve this. I however today found proof dating back to 1989.

Quentin

Do you mean he was miss sold because he had insurance elsewhere throughout?


If so it will be hard to prove - presumably he signed up and paid without coercion?

TROOD01

Yes, I feel he was missold because he already had insurance. Surely the Prudential must have known that he was insured, there must have been a question asking about the details of the property and if it was ex local authority or other questions regarding the building.

Quentin

Most insurers would assume someone buying buildings insurance would only do so if they required it, and not ask any of those questions at all


Was he vulnerable?

Thrugelmir

TROOD01 wrote: »

Yes, I feel he was missold because he already had insurance.

Your Uncle bought the insurance. Not the responsibilty of insurers to check.

rs65

TROOD01 wrote: »

everyone knows that the freeholder of ex local authorities properties is the Council and the buildings insurance is arranged through them.

I didn't know that.

Buzby

There is no database that records he didn't need what he had bought. Indeed, in the event of any claim, BOTH firms could be required to pay out their proportion of the claim, so not mis-sold, just MS-bought.

Indeed, you have no claim as only the policyholder has the right to raise the issue - the estate has no automatic right of claim.

David_InsDef

There may be no automatic right to recourse in this situation but if you have proof that premiums have been paid continuously to both insurers for the period of time, then there's no harm in approaching both insurers to articulate what's happened and asking an open ended question around how they treat such cases. You're unlikely to be the first and they may just have a procedure in place to deal with such scenarios (more likely as a good will gesture). What may complicate the issue is if either or both insurers have paid claims during the life of the policies - this probably wouldn't go in your favour.

It's not guaranteed that it's a mis-selling issue or indeed that anybody other than your relative is responsible for the problem - so personally, I would drop the adversarial mis-selling approach and appeal to both insurers' humanistic side.

Of course, all of this assumes you're legally authorised to deal with your uncle's affairs?

jonesMUFCforever

I think in practise (if there have been no claims) is that both companies refund half the premiums as long as both companies can agree that cover was in place.

Your_Hero

TROOD01 wrote: »

Yes, I feel he was missold because he already had insurance. Surely the Prudential must have known that he was insured, there must have been a question asking about the details of the property and if it was ex local authority or other questions regarding the building.

Nonsense. Missold home insurance...What next I wonder? There is no such thing.

It's the policyholder's responsibility not the insurer's to check if he is dual-insured. He paid for it for 25 years without realising?

What may have happened is he found a cheaper quote with the Pru and forgot to cancel the insurance with Zurich which renewed itself every year, since it was probably on direct debit, to protect the policyholder.

Smithers37

TROOD01 wrote: »

Yes, I feel he was missold because he already had insurance.

That's not being mis-sold.