insurance cancellations unlawful?

paddyandstumpy

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But this is the crux of the issue, disreputable insurance companies cancelling policies for trivial reasons, and reasons that in no way relate to the event.

It would appear that in doing so they are acting unlawfully.

The company in question needs to be closed down and the directors need to be jailed.

Until there is genuine regulation of this industry, and genuine punishment for those who break the rules to profiteer and cheat their customers, nothing will change.

Why should the person in question be cheated out of his claim, the rest of his cover, and be essentially uninsurable for the rest of his life?

You're missing the point. It's up to the insurer to decide if they want to offer themselves as underwriters for a risk. Once they've determined acceptability they then determine price.

In the case you've referenced in this debate, the client misrepresented the risk, meaning the insurer didn't make the acceptability or rate decision on the correct info.

When the correct info came to light; the insurer (as is their right) re-assessed acceptability and rate. In this scenario the risk fell outside of what they would have otherwise offered cover/taken on.

So why, as I mentioned in a previous post; should an insurer be forced to continue cover on a risk and indemnify in the event of a claim a risk which they didn't want to begin with, and wouldn't have underwritten had the correct information been disclosed?

Irrespective of the fact the argument is over who is the owner of the vehicle; the principle is the same. The precedent is the same.

If an insurer is forced to cover a risk they wouldn't normally insure, just because mis-proposed information meant this risk 'snuck' on the books, where would the line then be drawn?

Would an 18 year old be able to masquerade as a 50 year old, get cheap car insurance through a company that wouldn't insure 18 year olds; then expect the insurer to just pick up the bill? Arguing his age was irrelevant to the fact he crashed?

agrinnall

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The company in question needs to be closed down and the directors need to be jailed.

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer them to be hung, drawn and quartered? This seems to have incensed you so much that you're unwilling to concede any point of view other than your own.

Brooker_Dave

agrinnall wrote: »

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer them to be hung, drawn and quartered? This seems to have incensed you so much that you're unwilling to concede any point of view other than your own.

The problem with all the institutions is that once they get to a certain size, they can behave pretty well as they wish.

Customers get cheated and have their lives turned upside down, but nobody is ever punished.

Is that really a lot to ask?

Brooker_Dave

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

In the case you've referenced in this debate, the client misrepresented the risk, meaning the insurer didn't make the acceptability or rate decision on the correct info.

Same man, same car, same address, different name on a bit of paper.

Same risk.

Just an excuse to harass and cheat customer.

And for an added bonus an unlawful activity.

Or does the greed of companies come before the rights of consumers?

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Would an 18 year old be able to masquerade as a 50 year old, get cheap car insurance through a company that wouldn't insure 18 year olds; then expect the insurer to just pick up the bill? Arguing his age was irrelevant to the fact he crashed?

Of course not, that's a completely different situation.

paddyandstumpy

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Of course not, that's a completely different situation.

So where is the line drawn? It's OK to misrepresent about who owns the car, but it's not OK to misrepresent the age of the person driving it?

The point remains that the ownership of the car is an acceptance factor for that insurer (you can second guess as to why, but it's the insurer's right to pick and choose what they want to underwrite). Had the correct info been given to them, they would have chosen to not be on risk. As such, they have withdrawn cover and voided the contract as it was offered based on incorrect information.

You're not going to see it from any other view point than your own, so there is no point trying to explain the insurers viewpoint any more.