Lying to Insurers - Acceptable Now?

zen135

Kevin Pratt, a consumer affairs expert at MoneySuperMarket, an online comparison service, said the judgement overturns "centuries of insurance practice".

"It will still be a fraud if you fabricate a claim, and it will still be a fraud if you exaggerate a claim. But insurers can no longer use so-called ‘collateral lies’ to reject a valid claim".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/lied-on-an-insurance-iclaim-your-insurer-may-be-forced-to-pay-up/

dunstonh

With consumer insurance, the FOS has generally taken that position for about a decade now.

GingerBob_3

zen135 wrote: »

Kevin Pratt, a consumer affairs expert at MoneySuperMarket, an online comparison service, said the judgement overturns "centuries of insurance practice".

"It will still be a fraud if you fabricate a claim, and it will still be a fraud if you exaggerate a claim. But insurers can no longer use so-called ‘collateral lies’ to reject a valid claim".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/lied-on-an-insurance-iclaim-your-insurer-may-be-forced-to-pay-up/

Good. One less opportunity for them to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

OnanTheBarbarian

A common sense judgment

forgotmyname

Maybe i missed it but what was the lie?

Quentin

GingerBob wrote: »

Good. One less opportunity for them to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

Don't see it that way.


Now (certain) liars can still get their claims paid out who do you think will be paying (and how do you think the insurer will react to the increase in claims they have to pay to the liars?)

kimplus8

If it's a blatant lie then yes I can see the problem but when someone has made a simple error or simply ticked the wrong box or something then why should they be able to get out of paying over a technicality

GingerBob_3

Quentin wrote: »

Don't see it that way.


Now (certain) liars can still get their claims paid out who do you think will be paying (and how do you think the insurer will react to the increase in claims they have to pay to the liars?)

The issue is to do with what might be called 'irrelevant lies'. Actually, lots of the cases won't be 'lies' as commonly understood. A lot will be mistakes and such like.

maddogb

I think the main point is that some people in being treated badly by insurers feel the need to fabricate stuff to justify claims, not that the lies were about the claims themselves so shouldn't necessarily invalidate them.
Lets face it many insurers feel the need to be dishonest(sometimes by omission and sometimes by camouflage) to inflate their profits maybe they should lead by example.

dunstonh

Lets face it many insurers feel the need to be dishonest(sometimes by omission and sometimes by camouflage) to inflate their profits maybe they should lead by example.

And most consumers are willing to commit insurance fraud.

System

A point that commentators seem to have overlooked is that in the case in question the ship owners lied about whether the crew had carried out certain checks. But it would have made no difference - the bad weather would have caused the loss anyway.

But that is only relevant to a particular claim. Most lies relate to ongoing factors that would have had most impact on the premium, such as main drivers, were the keys in the car, previous subsidence, etc. Those lies cost the insurers money even if no claim ever results, because of deceitfully obtaining a lower premium.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that lying on a proposal form is now OK, are they?