Rejected claim & insurance cancelled

Jim1904

My son recently had his insurance claim rejected (go skippy) after his motorbike was stolen, due to not informing them of his new part time job.

Is this a valid reason if he didn't use the motorbike for the job or even to travel to the job?..he walked, so assumed he wouldn't have to tell them as it seemed irrelevant to the policy.

The bike was stolen but we managed to recover it through social media. They took it away to be assessed and deemed it a write off.

Can they ask us to pay to return the motorbike to us ? Is it still our property ?
Thank you for any help !

csgohan4

what does the T+C say in regards to occupation or change in circumstances. 

No harm in writing a letter of complaint and escalate to Ombudsman if not happy

naedanger

Jim1904 said:

My son recently had his insurance claim rejected (go skippy) after his motorbike was stolen, due to not informing them of his new part time job.

Is this a valid reason if he didn't use the motorbike for the job or even to travel to the job?..he walked, so assumed he wouldn't have to tell them as it seemed irrelevant to the policy.

The bike was stolen but we managed to recover it through social media. They took it away to be assessed and deemed it a write off.

Can they ask us to pay to return the motorbike to us ? Is it still our property ?
Thank you for any help !

It sounds like the insurance company have concluded he deliberately did not disclose something he knew he should, or they have other reasons for believing the claim was invalid. (If they thought it was accidental non disclosure they would probably have reduced the claim rather than pay nothing.)

I think your son should write a letter of complaint saying he believes their action is disproportionate and explaining why he didn't disclose his new job (the reason you have stated - he was not aware it would affect the premium or cover - is fine if that was the reason). I would expect them to explain why they are not paying anything. If he is not happy he should follow their complaint process which will, as the last step, enable him to take his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is separate from the insurer. 

PS I am assuming it is a write off after being damaged by the thieves. If it was a write off when he started the policy then they would never have insured it, and could decline the claim even if they agreed the non-disclosure was accidental. (The crucial point being the bike was not road worthy.)

Jim1904

The policy does ask to be notified of changes in employment,  but he assumed that because his motorbike was not being used in any way for his job or getting to the job  it wouldn't be relevant or affect the policy. 
No idea if this was a correct assumption or not,  but it seems pretty unfair to refuse  the claim on those grounds.
We've complained about the decision and completed an online form to the ombudsman.  

dunstonh

No idea if this was a correct assumption or not, 

It clearly is an incorrect assumption.

 but it seems pretty unfair to refuse  the claim on those grounds.

The non-disclosure rules are published.  If the insurer feels it was intentional non-disclosure then they can void the policy and refuse the claim.  If it was accidental non disclosure they will normally cover the claim but deduct the additional premiums from the claim.   That is unless they would never have covered him in the first place.  In which case they will void the policy.

If he had only recently got the job, then it would likely be accidental non-disclosure.   The longer time goes on though, the less likely he can play that card.  If it renewed or was bought without job being declared then its pretty much classed as intentional non-disclosure.

TELLIT01

Some insurers will use any and every excuse to avoid paying out on a claim.  This incident would suggest that his insurer fits that category.  Yes he should have informed them, but as the bike wasn't used either to get to work, or at work, using it as a reason not to pay out seems wrong.  I absolutely agree about taking it to the Financial Ombudsman if he gets nowhere with the insurer.

Jim1904

dunstonh said:

No idea if this was a correct assumption or not, 

It clearly is an incorrect assumption.

 but it seems pretty unfair to refuse  the claim on those grounds.

The non-disclosure rules are published.  If the insurer feels it was intentional non-disclosure then they can void the policy and refuse the claim.  If it was accidental non disclosure they will normally cover the claim but deduct the additional premiums from the claim.   That is unless they would never have covered him in the first place.  

The policy we chose for him covered him for social , domestic and commuting  as we thought he may get a job st some point ( he didn't have one when we started the policy) The only thing we failed to do was think that it was relevant to his motor policy that a job that didn't involve his motorbike in any way would invalidate a claim. If he had been driving too and from work on his bike we would have informed the insurer.

The policy did cover him to use the bike to travel to work. But because we didn't tell them he had started working (1 night per week for a couple of months) we invalidated the policy, even though he didn't use his bike .

Aretnap

Occupation is a fairly major rating factor for insurers, over and above any risk associated with actually driving for work. Think about who you would expect to have more accidents, a group of footballers or a group of vicars - to give a slightly extreme example of why it makes a difference. So yes it definitely needed to be declared even if he wasn't using the bike for work, and failing to declare it is definitely a valid reason to cancel the policy, just as if he had given the wrong age, or failed to tell them about a speeding conviction.

That comes with a couple of caveats as above; they should only refuse the claim outright rather than reduce the amount if the failure to disclose was deliberate rather than an oversight, or if they would not have offered cover at all if they'd known about the job. The latter seems unlikely unless he was doing something particularly high risk from the insurer's viewpoint, like delivery driving or professional football.

Another point to consider is that "unemployed" (if that's what he was down as originally) is usually towards the high end of the price/risk scale, so it's possible that getting many jobs would actually have brought his premium down. If that's the case, the insurer should not use the failure to declare it as a reason to cancel the policy.

It's certainly in his interests to contest this if he can because as things stand he now has to answer "yes" to the question "have you ever had insurance cancelled", which will cause him problems getting cheap insurance for a long time to come.

If the insurer haven't paid for the claim then the bike is still his property; however the insurer is probably entitled to recover the cost of collecting it and assessing it.

TheStoozeFather

TELLIT01 said:

Some insurers will use any and every excuse to avoid paying out on a claim.  This incident would suggest that his insurer fits that category.  Yes he should have informed them, but as the bike wasn't used either to get to work, or at work, using it as a reason not to pay out seems wrong.  I absolutely agree about taking it to the Financial Ombudsman if he gets nowhere with the insurer.

I agree with this. You have a strong argument.

dunstonh

TheStoozeFather said:

TELLIT01 said:

Some insurers will use any and every excuse to avoid paying out on a claim.  This incident would suggest that his insurer fits that category.  Yes he should have informed them, but as the bike wasn't used either to get to work, or at work, using it as a reason not to pay out seems wrong.  I absolutely agree about taking it to the Financial Ombudsman if he gets nowhere with the insurer.

I agree with this. You have a strong argument.

Not sure you can say that as it's unclear what the occupation is.    What if its an occupation that the insurer would not offer cover for?

There is not enough info to go on. Certainly worth a complaint but not enough information to say whether it is strong case or not.

A_Lert

It's a lesson learned harshly. That's going to cost him for life. (IMHO it's a crock that criminal convictions expire but capricious insurers can brand you for life, but that's the way things are.)

Unless it's stored in a locked garage (and even if it is, considering burglaries), going to work and leaving the bike parked at home could easily be seen as increasing the risk.