NIG insurance refuse to pay out after car stolen!!

CardinalWolsey

An insurer is only able to refuse a claim on the basis of information that has been withheld if that information would have meant they would have declined to cover the vehicle in the first instance. If they would have covered the vehicle with all relevant information disclosed, they must honour the claim - although they are entitled to deduct what would have been any increase in premium(s) from the settlement.

Ditzy_Mitzy

CardinalWolsey said:

An insurer is only able to refuse a claim on the basis of information that has been withheld if that information would have meant they would have declined to cover the vehicle in the first instance. If they would have covered the vehicle with all relevant information disclosed, they must honour the claim - although they are entitled to deduct what would have been any increase in premium(s) from the settlement.

I thought that only applied to losses caused to a third party by the vehicle, i.e. if this particular Range Rover had hit someone else's car then NIG cannot refuse to pay the someone else's claim.  Insurers remain within their rights to reject claims for the policyholder's own property, if said policy was taken out under false pretences.  In this case the Range Rover was stolen, so there aren't any third party losses as far as we know.  The only claimant is the policyholder himself. 

eddddy

CardinalWolsey said:

An insurer is only able to refuse a claim on the basis of information that has been withheld if that information would have meant they would have declined to cover the vehicle in the first instance. If they would have covered the vehicle with all relevant information disclosed, they must honour the claim - although they are entitled to deduct what would have been any increase in premium(s) from the settlement.

I'm pretty sure that the Insurance Act 2015 changes that last sentence.

As mentioned in my post above, they don't deduct the difference in premium from the claim, instead they pay a pro rata percentage of the claim.

Tuckshop1

It had the kit on when purchased from Saxtons Chelsmford.. 

shaun_from_Africa

Tuckshop1 said:

It had the kit on when purchased from Saxtons Chelsmford.. 

I would be very surprised if the advert didn't state that it had Overfinch mods on the vehicle as these can increase the price by a fair amount.

DoaM

Would that not be reflected on the V5C?

Ditzy_Mitzy

DoaM said:

Would that not be reflected on the V5C?

Not if it was limited to cosmetic enhancements, wheels, interior accessories and so on.  The V5 would only need to be different if 'Overfinch' was listed as the manufacturer or if modifications changed the engine size or structure.  Changing a car's appearance doesn't generally, unless you've added extra axles or something, matter to the DVLA.  Change of colour does, but then that doesn't usually affect the insurance.

Tuckshop1

DoaM said:

Would that not be reflected on the V5C?

No, the log book does not state it is an Overfinch.. 

DoaM

Thanks. I was just looking at possible "outs" you may have for the insurer being aware that it actually was an Overfinch (whatever that is) without you having to specifically declare it as so.

That said, if the purchase, insurance etc. was handled by your company, what have they said about this? Surely the liability lies with them?

shaun_from_Africa

DoaM said:

That said, if the purchase, insurance etc. was handled by your company, what have they said about this? Surely the liability lies with them?

The way the OP worded it, I took it that the company is owned by them: (but this may not be the case).

Tuckshop1 said:

plus we pay over 30k a year for the policy.