I Owe Insurance Company £334,000 due to Voided Insurance

GDB2222

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Is the waiver relevant or is it belt and braces? Can't the insurer recover the pay out from the OP anyway?


They aren't really getting off the hook. The OP effectively wasn't insured.


I'm sure they've got no practical hope of recovering £300k though

Besides that, we have no idea what the waiver said.

Nick_C

Just read through this thread. Post 1 is a sobering tale. It should be posted on the home page of every Motor Insurance Company's web site.

Most of us probably thought the same thing when we read about failing to declare 9 points. But what is done is done. How many of you have not done stupid things sometimes? I certainly have.

What OP needs right now is advice and support. Most of the responses have provided that. But sadly a handful have not.

OP. Look after yourself. Please update the thread with developments.

onwards&upwards

DoaM wrote: »

If there's a mortgage then the mortgage company own the house until it is paid off.

Not true.

You legally own the house, you just have a large loan secured against it.

justjohn

To the OP , out of interest how long was the insurance policy active before they gave you a full refund?


I assume they asked you to sign waver after giving a refund ?


(seek legal advice to verify the insurance has acted within the law, solicitor may look at trying to void the waver)

Aretnap

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Is the waiver relevant or is it belt and braces? Can't the insurer recover the pay out from the OP anyway?

They aren't really getting off the hook. The OP effectively wasn't insured.

I'm sure they've got no practical hope of recovering £300k though

I was under the impression that the "waiver" is generally an agreement to let the insurer handle the claim and negotiate a settlement with the claimant on behalf of the customer. (As the policy has been voided, the insurer would not automatically have this right, as they normally would do under the policy terms).

If the OP hadn't signed the insurer would still ultimately have to step in and pay whatever was eventually awarded against him, and the insurer could then recover (as much as possible) of it from him. However in the meantime the OP would either have to deal with the claim by himself (and likely have the claimant's lawyers run rings round him), or hire his own legal team to deal with it for him.

I've seen it argued by some tin foil hat wearers that this sort of agreement just means that the insurer will pay out whatever the claimant asks for, knowing that they can pass the costs onto the customer, but that argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. It's clearly still in the insurer's interests to minimise the costs of the claim as far as possible, especially with a large claim where they have little hope for recovering more than a small fraction of the settlement from the customer. Sending a six figure bill to a person with little or no money does not in any sense get them "off the hook". OTOH it's probably fair to wonder just how much benefit the OP gets from the arrangement - it makes little difference whether the final settlement ends up being £300K or £400K if you can't pay either amount.

DoaM

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Not true.

You legally own the house, you just have a large loan secured against it.

Pointless post given you've posted this 2 days after I already acknowledged that the technicalities of what I said was incorrect.

dacouch

justjohn wrote: »

To the OP , out of interest how long was the insurance policy active before they gave you a full refund?


I assume they asked you to sign waver after giving a refund ?


(seek legal advice to verify the insurance has acted within the law, solicitor may look at trying to void the waver)

Even if the waiver is voided, the Insurer can still seek their outlay from the OP

Dr_Crypto

The OP wrote

they wrote to me again 9 months after the accident to ask me to sign a Waiver Form, which meant I would be liable for any monies paid out.

I’ve never seen a waiver myself but I’m interested in what one actually states given the difference between the OP and the posters above.

Aretnap

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

The OP wrote
I’ve never seen a waiver myself but I’m interested in what one actually states given the difference between the OP and the posters above.

I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but it can't MAKE the OP liable for the consequences of the accident, because with a voided policy the OP is already liable for the consequences (assuming the accident was his fault, which appears to be a given if he pulled out of a side street without being able to see that it was safe).

If the insurer has voided the policy from inception then this will be a MIB claim, albeit one where the insurer is acting for the MIB under Article 75 of the agreement. How MIB claims work is basically that the MIB (or the insurer) pays the claimant a wodge of money, and in return the claimant agrees to let the MIB (or the insurer) pursue the uninsured driver on his behalf for the compensation that he is owed. So the driver remains liable for what a court will ultimately award against him - he just has to pay it to the MIB rather than to the victim.

If the OP's waiver doesn't simply reiterate this liability, it may be that in exchange for having the insurer represent him, he agrees to be liable for what the insurer actually pays out, rather than the theoretical amount that a court would have awarded against him had it got that far. The two amounts may not be the same - although the difference is academic if both are more than he could ever pay.