We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
3 points or speed awareness?
Options
Comments
-
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Lies can now be acceptable when making a claim, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36845617
The centuries old practice of truthfulness regarding insurance is now at an end.
It has ramifications, if 3 points doesn't increase a premium then not telling them just has the same effect so it becomes a secondary lie.
This appears to now be acceptable.
I think not.
The Supreme Court ruling is about insurance claims, not proposals.0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Lies can now be acceptable when making a claim, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36845617
The centuries old practice of truthfulness regarding insurance is now at an end.
It has ramifications, if 3 points doesn't increase a premium then not telling them just has the same effect so it becomes a secondary lie.
This appears to now be acceptable.
You (have chosen to) misunderstand what you have read.
It doesn't mean lying on your application is now acceptable!0 -
You (have chosen to) misunderstand what you have read.
It doesn't mean lying on your application is now acceptable!
I'll take what a legal expert said on the news the other night rather than some random forum member, thank you very much.
What the ruling does is to introduce the fact that complete honesty is now not required for insurance.
Despite the lie being at the claim stage it has ramifications at any stage of an insurance policy, so long as the misinformation has no affect on the policy, ie it's secondary.
If 3 points doesn't increase the policy premium if one were to tell the insurance company, then by not telling them has the same effect, it becomes secondary, unaffected.
It is the principle effect of the lie, not at what stage the insurance policy maybe at, like at a claim.
If you do not understand the law I suggest you refrain from commenting on this subject because your "advice" is outdated.0 -
No it doesn't, it was purely about whether a claim could be affected by "collateral lies" regarding the circumstances of the claim.Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »I'll take what a legal expert said on the news the other night rather than some random forum member, thank you very much.
What the ruling does is to introduce the fact that complete honesty is now not required for insurance
Your application for insurance is like any contract, if you lie regarding certain aspects then the insurer would be well within their rights to cancel the policy.0 -
I think not.
The Supreme Court ruling is about insurance claims, not proposals.
It was about a lie regarding an insurance policy which so happened to be at the claim stage.
It is the principle point of the ruling that needs to be focused upon, not the stage of the policy.
To summarise, so long as a lie has only a secondary affect on an insurance policy then that is now fine.
For eg, if I were to say I had a smoke alarm in every room of my house for home insurance, but I lied because I hadn't, and I made a claim for storm damage, then the fact I didn't have smoke alarms becomes secondary as they would be useless in that event.
However, if I made a claim for fire damage then the insurers could point to the lie on my policy details.
That is what has been ruled upon, not just insurance claims per se.0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »I'll take what a legal expert said on the news the other night rather than some random forum member, thank you very much.
What the ruling does is to introduce the fact that complete honesty is now not required for insurance.
Despite the lie being at the claim stage it has ramifications at any stage of an insurance policy, so long as the misinformation has no affect on the policy, ie it's secondary.
If 3 points doesn't increase the policy premium if one were to tell the insurance company, then by not telling them has the same effect, it becomes secondary, unaffected.
It is the principle effect of the lie, not at what stage the insurance policy maybe at, like at a claim.
If you do not understand the law I suggest you refrain from commenting on this subject because your "advice" is outdated.
Leaving aside the fact that you're wrong ...
How could you know in advance whether 3 points would affect your premium? Insurers not to publicise their underwriting criteria, as they're commercially sensitive.0 -
No it doesn't, it was purely about whether a claim could be affected by "collateral lies" regarding the circumstances of the claim.
Your application for insurance is like any contract, if you lie regarding certain aspects then the insurer would be well within their rights to cancel the policy.
Again, outdated.
What has been ruled is that collateral lies regarding insurance (note, the Supreme Court doesn't just mention claims) are acceptable.
If an insurer cancels your policy over a lie that had no effect on that policy then you would now have the precedent of a Supreme Court ruling as the Supreme Court says it is acceptable.
It changes the get out clauses of insurance firms who use any excuse to not pay out.
If I buy holiday insurance and lose a wallet then the insurers cannot now refuse my claim because I may have lied to them I am not a smoker, when I was.
That aspect is secondary as the claim would have nothing to do with a claim for losing a wallet.0 -
Leaving aside the fact that you're wrong .. Ft.
He (Woodwood) is not just wrong. dangerously wrong if anyone follows his "attractive" advice and thinks it's OK to lie on their proposal!
Think bankruptcy should you lie on your application then injure a third party. (Your insurance would reject your own claim but pay out to the third party then come to you to reimburse them)
Everyone is advised to take care over any "advice" seen on this forum as anyone can post, and bad advice doesn't get removed)0 -
Leaving aside the fact that you're wrong ...
How could you know in advance whether 3 points would affect your premium? Insurers not to publicise their underwriting criteria, as they're commercially sensitive.
If I received two quotes from the same firm, one where I revealed 3 points, and one not revealing 3 points, but the policy premiums were the same, then there would be no effect.
The insurer would still be insuring me.
Whether I had 3 points or not would be irrelevant when making an accident claim as I could prove that the two quotes were the same either way.
However, if the effect of 3 points were to have a bearing, such as getting another 3 points, then that would be different as it would have a direct effect.0 -
He (Woodwood) is not just wrong. dangerously wrong if anyone follows his "attractive" advice and thinks it's OK to lie on their proposal!
Think bankruptcy should you lie on your application then injure a third party. (Your insurance would reject your own claim but pay out to the third party then come to you to reimburse them)
Everyone is advised to take care over any "advice" seen on this forum as anyone can post, and bad advice doesn't get removed)
I'm not advocating lying on an insurance policy, I am simply posting what a Supreme Court ruling has decided ie a collateral lie is acceptable with regard to insurance.
I dare say MSE will itself produce an article soon to explain this ruling.
However, what is abundantly clear is your advice was wrong, that insurance requires absolute honesty.
Outdated and wrong advice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards