Cancelled Insurance

tinatails

Hi
We had our home insurance cancelled in 2022 by admiral when we tried to make a claim. They refunded all our premiums back to us but have basically made us uninsurable as I have to declare we have had an insurance cancelled.
The reason they cancelled it was due to a previous claim of a flood in our garden so when I answered the question of “ has your home ever been flooded” i answered no as I thought they meant the house. They accepted it was an easy mistake to make and they did not think it was fraudulent hence refunding our premiums.
I contacted the ombudsman who were very sympathetic however all they do is check they have followed proper procedures. 
My question is, is there a time frame I have to disclose that we have had an insurance cancelled?
We now have to go through a broker and are paying 4 times the amount previously!
Kind regards 
Tina 

Wonka_2

Unfortunately it's likely to be forever for mainstream insurers - most ask 'Have you ever had insurance cancelled ?' although other may be aware of insurers that change the question to 'In the last xx years have you had insurance cancelled ?'

A decent broker is likely to be your best bet - the alternative being you may find a company that will be a similar price to previously but excluding flood cover - and that's a big risk

DullGreyGuy

Wonka_2 said:
the alternative being you may find a company that will be a similar price to previously but excluding flood cover - and that's a big risk

Excluding Flood is not going to help, the issue is the policy was cancelled for making a false declaration. 

tinatails said:

We had our home insurance cancelled in 2022 by admiral when we tried to make a claim. They refunded all our premiums back to us but have basically made us uninsurable as I have to declare we have had an insurance cancelled.
The reason they cancelled it was due to a previous claim of a flood in our garden so when I answered the question of “ has your home ever been flooded” i answered no as I thought they meant the house. They accepted it was an easy mistake to make and they did not think it was fraudulent hence refunding our premiums.
I contacted the ombudsman who were very sympathetic however all they do is check they have followed proper procedures. 
My question is, is there a time frame I have to disclose that we have had an insurance cancelled?
We now have to go through a broker and are paying 4 times the amount previously!

Did Admiral state that they wouldn't have insured the property had you declared the flooding to the garden?

If they accept it was careless they can only cancel the policy if they wouldn't have insured it had you given the accurate information.

Did you ask them if you needed to declare it as a cancelled policy going forward? Normally you would for this sort of thing but always worth a punt, there are some that do declare they've had a policy cancelled when technically they don't need to (eg intending to change car and the insurer won't insure the new car)

The ombudsman does more than check proper process was followed, if they accepted the question was badly worded and likely to cause confusion at a minimum they could make Admiral say you don't have to declare it and potentially could say you answered the question truthfully and Admiral simply asked the wrong question. 

I note at the moment the exact wording is that you have to agree a number of statements including:

The property:

• has not been flooded in the last 25 years, including the land it stands on
  
  

tinatails

Thank you for your reply. They did not say they were careless but accepted it was a genuine mistake on my behalf hence refunding my premiums.
I did not think to ask whether I have to declare refusal going forward, I am very honest so will unless/ until by law I do not have to hence my question of is there a time frame I have to disclose. I took the insurance via a comparison site and take the responsibility that I did not read carefully enough.

Aretnap

DullGreyGuy said:

Did Admiral state that they wouldn't have insured the property had you declared the flooding to the garden?

If they accept it was careless they can only cancel the policy if they wouldn't have insured it had you given the accurate information.

Are you sure that's 100% correct? They can certainly only refuse to pay a claim for an incident that has already happened if they would not have provided cover at all, but if I'm reading correctly CIDRA does give them the right to cancel the policy going forwards. (Section 9 below)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/enacted

If the insurer does give the consumer notice of cancellation, the consumer does have the right to cancel the policy himself and this avoid having a cancellation on record, but that ship has presumably sailed.

DullGreyGuy said:

The ombudsman does more than check proper process was followed, if they accepted the question was badly worded and likely to cause confusion at a minimum they could make Admiral say you don't have to declare it and potentially could say you answered the question truthfully and Admiral simply asked the wrong question. 

I note at the moment the exact wording is that you have to agree a number of statements including:

The property:

• has not been flooded in the last 25 years, including the land it stands on
  

I think it's at least arguable that the wording is ambiguous. Does "the land the property stands on" mean the land the actual house is standing on, or the wider area of land around it? I think many people would understand the question as referring to floodwater lapping around the wall of your house rather than the far end of your garden, especially if it's a large garden.

On the other hand if the flood resulted in an insurance claim it was presumably a bit more than a big puddle at the far end of the garden so it would depend on the extent of the flood, and perhaps also whether the OP was the homeowner at the time.

tinatails

Thank you for all your comments. The wording is very ambiguous! It was our garage and garden that got flooded meters away from the house, and to answer your question yes we were the homeowners.

DullGreyGuy

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Did Admiral state that they wouldn't have insured the property had you declared the flooding to the garden?

If they accept it was careless they can only cancel the policy if they wouldn't have insured it had you given the accurate information.

Are you sure that's 100% correct? They can certainly only refuse to pay a claim for an incident that has already happened if they would not have provided cover at all, but if I'm reading correctly CIDRA does give them the right to cancel the policy going forwards. (Section 9 below)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/enacted

If the insurer does give the consumer notice of cancellation, the consumer does have the right to cancel the policy himself and this avoid having a cancellation on record, but that ship has presumably sailed.

S1P1:

Careless misrepresentations—claims

4. The insurer's remedies are based on what it would have done if the consumer had complied with the duty set out in section 2(2), and paragraphs 5 to 8 are to be read accordingly.

5. If the insurer would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must return the premiums paid.

6. If the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract, but on different terms (excluding terms relating to the premium), the contract is to be treated as if it had been entered into on those different terms if the insurer so requires.

7. In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim.

If Admiral in this case say they won't offer insurance to those with prior flood issues then they can use clause 5 above to void the contract, refuse the claim but unlike a reckless or intentional misrepresentation they have to return the premium.

 If Admiral say they would have accepted the risk but on different terms, eg exc flood, then those terms are considered to be in place and any claim is adjusted based on the percentage of underpaid premium and under the new terms (the OP hasn't said what the new claim was for)

There is nothing in the legislation saying they have to give the customer the option to cancel it themselves if they have the right to void the policy... technically there is nothing to cancel as the legal effect of voiding is that the contract was never in place.  

Aretnap

DullGreyGuy said:

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Did Admiral state that they wouldn't have insured the property had you declared the flooding to the garden?

If they accept it was careless they can only cancel the policy if they wouldn't have insured it had you given the accurate information.

Are you sure that's 100% correct? They can certainly only refuse to pay a claim for an incident that has already happened if they would not have provided cover at all, but if I'm reading correctly CIDRA does give them the right to cancel the policy going forwards. (Section 9 below)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/enacted

If the insurer does give the consumer notice of cancellation, the consumer does have the right to cancel the policy himself and this avoid having a cancellation on record, but that ship has presumably sailed.

S1P1:

Careless misrepresentations—claims

4. The insurer's remedies are based on what it would have done if the consumer had complied with the duty set out in section 2(2), and paragraphs 5 to 8 are to be read accordingly.

5. If the insurer would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must return the premiums paid.

6. If the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract, but on different terms (excluding terms relating to the premium), the contract is to be treated as if it had been entered into on those different terms if the insurer so requires.

7. In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim.

If Admiral in this case say they won't offer insurance to those with prior flood issues then they can use clause 5 above to void the contract, refuse the claim but unlike a reckless or intentional misrepresentation they have to return the premium.

 If Admiral say they would have accepted the risk but on different terms, eg exc flood, then those terms are considered to be in place and any claim is adjusted based on the percentage of underpaid premium and under the new terms (the OP hasn't said what the new claim was for)

There is nothing in the legislation saying they have to give the customer the option to cancel it themselves if they have the right to void the policy... technically there is nothing to cancel as the legal effect of voiding is that the contract was never in place.  

You're talking about voiding the policy from inception. I'm talking about cancelling the policy going forwards.

If a careless misrepresentation comes to light 6 months into a 12 month policy the insurer has to deal with existing claims as you say - but they do still explicitly have the right to cancel the policy, ie terminate it, not honour the remaining 6 months.

If by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the insurer would have either (or both) of the rights conferred by paragraph 6 or 7, the insurer may—

(a)give notice to that effect to the consumer, or

(b)terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the consumer.

(5) (Only relevant to life insurance)

(6)If the insurer gives notice to the consumer under sub-paragraph (4)(a), the consumer may terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the insurer.

(7)If either party terminates the contract under this paragraph, the insurer must refund any premiums paid for the terminated cover in respect of the balance of the contract term.

(8)Termination of the contract under this paragraph does not affect the treatment of any claim arising under the contract in the period before termination.

I made a mistake saying that in this situation the consumer has the right to get their cancellation in first, that applies if the insurer takes the alternative approach of telling the consumer that they'll only pay X% of any claims that happen in the next 6 months.

DullGreyGuy

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Did Admiral state that they wouldn't have insured the property had you declared the flooding to the garden?

If they accept it was careless they can only cancel the policy if they wouldn't have insured it had you given the accurate information.

Are you sure that's 100% correct? They can certainly only refuse to pay a claim for an incident that has already happened if they would not have provided cover at all, but if I'm reading correctly CIDRA does give them the right to cancel the policy going forwards. (Section 9 below)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/enacted

If the insurer does give the consumer notice of cancellation, the consumer does have the right to cancel the policy himself and this avoid having a cancellation on record, but that ship has presumably sailed.

S1P1:

Careless misrepresentations—claims

4. The insurer's remedies are based on what it would have done if the consumer had complied with the duty set out in section 2(2), and paragraphs 5 to 8 are to be read accordingly.

5. If the insurer would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must return the premiums paid.

6. If the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract, but on different terms (excluding terms relating to the premium), the contract is to be treated as if it had been entered into on those different terms if the insurer so requires.

7. In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim.

If Admiral in this case say they won't offer insurance to those with prior flood issues then they can use clause 5 above to void the contract, refuse the claim but unlike a reckless or intentional misrepresentation they have to return the premium.

 If Admiral say they would have accepted the risk but on different terms, eg exc flood, then those terms are considered to be in place and any claim is adjusted based on the percentage of underpaid premium and under the new terms (the OP hasn't said what the new claim was for)

There is nothing in the legislation saying they have to give the customer the option to cancel it themselves if they have the right to void the policy... technically there is nothing to cancel as the legal effect of voiding is that the contract was never in place.  

You're talking about voiding the policy from inception. I'm talking about cancelling the policy going forwards.

If a careless misrepresentation comes to light 6 months into a 12 month policy the insurer has to deal with existing claims as you say - but they do still explicitly have the right to cancel the policy, ie terminate it, not honour the remaining 6 months.

If by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the insurer would have either (or both) of the rights conferred by paragraph 6 or 7, the insurer may—

(a)give notice to that effect to the consumer, or

(b)terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the consumer.

(5) (Only relevant to life insurance)

(6)If the insurer gives notice to the consumer under sub-paragraph (4)(a), the consumer may terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the insurer.

(7)If either party terminates the contract under this paragraph, the insurer must refund any premiums paid for the terminated cover in respect of the balance of the contract term.

(8)Termination of the contract under this paragraph does not affect the treatment of any claim arising under the contract in the period before termination.

I made a mistake saying that in this situation the consumer has the right to get their cancellation in first, that applies if the insurer takes the alternative approach of telling the consumer that they'll only pay X% of any claims that happen in the next 6 months.

The section you are quoting from is if the misrepresentation is identified in the normal course of business not at the point of claim. The OP's issue has been identified at the point of claim. 

Outside of the claims situation the insurer gains the additional option to cancel the policy even if they would have offered terms for a partial refund and in that scenario the insured can effectively counter cancel 

Aretnap

DullGreyGuy said:

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Did Admiral state that they wouldn't have insured the property had you declared the flooding to the garden?

If they accept it was careless they can only cancel the policy if they wouldn't have insured it had you given the accurate information.

Are you sure that's 100% correct? They can certainly only refuse to pay a claim for an incident that has already happened if they would not have provided cover at all, but if I'm reading correctly CIDRA does give them the right to cancel the policy going forwards. (Section 9 below)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/enacted

If the insurer does give the consumer notice of cancellation, the consumer does have the right to cancel the policy himself and this avoid having a cancellation on record, but that ship has presumably sailed.

S1P1:

Careless misrepresentations—claims

4. The insurer's remedies are based on what it would have done if the consumer had complied with the duty set out in section 2(2), and paragraphs 5 to 8 are to be read accordingly.

5. If the insurer would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must return the premiums paid.

6. If the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract, but on different terms (excluding terms relating to the premium), the contract is to be treated as if it had been entered into on those different terms if the insurer so requires.

7. In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim.

If Admiral in this case say they won't offer insurance to those with prior flood issues then they can use clause 5 above to void the contract, refuse the claim but unlike a reckless or intentional misrepresentation they have to return the premium.

 If Admiral say they would have accepted the risk but on different terms, eg exc flood, then those terms are considered to be in place and any claim is adjusted based on the percentage of underpaid premium and under the new terms (the OP hasn't said what the new claim was for)

There is nothing in the legislation saying they have to give the customer the option to cancel it themselves if they have the right to void the policy... technically there is nothing to cancel as the legal effect of voiding is that the contract was never in place.  

You're talking about voiding the policy from inception. I'm talking about cancelling the policy going forwards.

If a careless misrepresentation comes to light 6 months into a 12 month policy the insurer has to deal with existing claims as you say - but they do still explicitly have the right to cancel the policy, ie terminate it, not honour the remaining 6 months.

If by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the insurer would have either (or both) of the rights conferred by paragraph 6 or 7, the insurer may—

(a)give notice to that effect to the consumer, or

(b)terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the consumer.

(5) (Only relevant to life insurance)

(6)If the insurer gives notice to the consumer under sub-paragraph (4)(a), the consumer may terminate the contract by giving reasonable notice to the insurer.

(7)If either party terminates the contract under this paragraph, the insurer must refund any premiums paid for the terminated cover in respect of the balance of the contract term.

(8)Termination of the contract under this paragraph does not affect the treatment of any claim arising under the contract in the period before termination.

I made a mistake saying that in this situation the consumer has the right to get their cancellation in first, that applies if the insurer takes the alternative approach of telling the consumer that they'll only pay X% of any claims that happen in the next 6 months.

The section you are quoting from is if the misrepresentation is identified in the normal course of business not at the point of claim. The OP's issue has been identified at the point of claim. 

Outside of the claims situation the insurer gains the additional option to cancel the policy even if they would have offered terms for a partial refund and in that scenario the insured can effectively counter cancel 

Ah, fair point, I'd missed that bit.

It seems rather counter intuitive that the insurer can terminate it or not depending on when and how the misrepresentation was discovered. It would seem fair enough to me for Admiral to say to the customer "you didn't tell us about the flood, we accept that it wasn't deliberate so we'll pay 80% of the claim, however you will have to find a new insurer as of next week."

What's the rationale for effectively forcing them to leave the policy running to its end in this situation, but not if the misrepresentation came to light sure to (say) a routine driving licence check?

tinatails

For transparency the claim that Admiral refused was for a leak in our bathroom, because I had answered no to “ has your house ever been flooded” when taking the insurance And the garden had previously.  

When they informed us they were cancelling our insurance I offered to withdraw the claim as to not render us uninsurable.