Insurance Refusing to settle

SHAFT

unholyangel wrote: »

So if someone damaged your car, you wouldn't consider that you had suffered a loss? Interesting.

I never said anything of the kind. I said there was no claim.

So you can't back up your opinion with any evidence.

unholyangel

SHAFT wrote: »

I never said anything of the kind. I said there was no claim.

So you can't back up your opinion with any evidence.

No, you seemingly disagreed that the OP's vehicle being in an accident when taken by the brother meant the OP suffered a loss (which is what my point was). Then proceeded to ask me for proof of it (while supplying none yourself btw) despite the fact that its the basis of every single insurance claim, not to mention every claim found on breach of contract or tort.

A claim against another driver is one under tort btw. Whether you choose (or are able) to recover your losses from the other party doesnt impact on whether the loss occurred.

dacouch

unholyangel wrote: »

So if someone damaged your car, you wouldn't consider that you had suffered a loss? Interesting.



Hence the "usually" part of my post.

As for having never seen an insurer with such a stipulation as 2, have a search. A few decades ago it wouldn't have been common but since then they've became increasingly common.

I disagree with "Usually" there are some that exclude spouse and some that will also exclude family living with you but to say it's usually an exclusion is not accurate.

I would be interested in seeing the wording of an Insurer that has an exclusion stating it's for one off events and there is no regularity to it. The way they word that would be interesting

dacouch

For the record I would not be surprised if the OP's story is true or mostly true, I've seen plenty of similar outlandish stories that I happen to know are true during my time in the trade

The difficulty though is when you live a chaotic lifestyle and pay with cash that has not touched your bank account it can be difficult to provide a paper trail to back up the story

The OP needs to get the keys professionally checked and a report commissioned by a suitably qualified professional.

He also needs to resist the urge to generate any fake paperwork etc to back up his story as Insurers are very good at discovering these and will already be on the alert in this case

There is a poster who is a specialist fraud investigator on Piston Heads who may be able to help the OP although he may see through the story

dacouch

Would be interesting to know when the car last had an MOT

FaizanKhan

Thank you daouch

Ive got nothing to hide and just want this resolved. The cash receipts I have are genuine and not fake paperwork. The keys are with the insurance company so I cant do much with them. Will be seeing my solicitor tomorrow

SHAFT

unholyangel wrote: »

No, you seemingly disagreed that the OP's vehicle being in an accident when taken by the brother meant the OP suffered a loss (which is what my point was). Then proceeded to ask me for proof of it (while supplying none yourself btw) despite the fact that its the basis of every single insurance claim, not to mention every claim found on breach of contract or tort.

A claim against another driver is one under tort btw. Whether you choose (or are able) to recover your losses from the other party doesnt impact on whether the loss occurred.

You need the rewind a bit.

I suspect a loss has taken place and he made a false declaration to obtain insurance. However what I'm actually asking is for something to support the fact a loss in insurance terms means a loss to something that was uninsured when the loss occurred.

Other than your opinion you can't evidence it.

SHAFT

FaizanKhan wrote: »

Thank you daouch

Ive got nothing to hide and just want this resolved. The cash receipts I have are genuine and not fake paperwork. The keys are with the insurance company so I cant do much with them. Will be seeing my solicitor tomorrow

Your solicitor needs to determine what a loss is in relation to car insurance because on the face of it you've made a false declaration to obtain the insurance you're trying to claim on.

shaun_from_Africa

SHAFT wrote: »

However what I'm actually asking is for something to support the fact a loss in insurance terms means a loss to something that was uninsured when the loss occurred.

Other than your opinion you can't evidence it.

There doesn't need to be anything in insurance terms to define "loss".

All contracts have terms written into them and there are two types of terms, defined and undefined.
Defined terms will have specific interpretations and these will be clearly stated in the policy documents, something like this:

Definitions
Wherever the following words or phrases appear in bold in this policy booklet, they will have the meanings described below

repair your vehicle unless you notify us that you want us to pay someone else to repair it, or

If a specific interpretation to a word isn't given in a consumer contract then the interpretation applied is that which most people would assume the word to mean.

I can't be bothered doing it but if there was a survey done on here asking what people thought the word "loss" meant, I'm fairly confident that the general consensus would be that it meant either a financial or physical loss, which is something the OP most certainly suffered when their car was crashed.

If an insurer has their own specific definition of "loss" then they can't then apply this definition to a claim if the policyholder had no idea that this definition was going to be applied to their policy.

SHAFT

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

There doesn't need to be anything in insurance terms to define "loss".

All contracts have terms written into them and there are two types of terms, defined and undefined.
Defined terms will have specific interpretations and these will be clearly stated in the policy documents, something like this:



If a specific interpretation to a word isn't given in a consumer contract then the interpretation applied is that which most people would assume the word to mean.

I can't be bothered doing it but if there was a survey done on here asking what people thought the word "loss" meant, I'm fairly confident that the general consensus would be that it meant either a financial or physical loss, which is something the OP most certainly suffered when their car was crashed.

If an insurer has their own specific definition of "loss" then they can't then apply this definition to a claim if the policyholder had no idea that this definition was going to be applied to their policy.

I get all that and he's probably committed fraud to obtain insurance. What I'm asking in terms of your vehicle is there any get out due to it not being insured when loss occurred?