Home Insurance Refused - Does It Affect Car Insurance

jessjess_2

If it was all at one time surely that would count as 1 instance, as one insured peril, most likely AD, has taken place? Maybe 8 things are damaged but only one peril is in operation at one time? That how i would have taken it anyway....

wishiwasarichgirl

raskazz wrote: »

Depends on the wording of the question. If, as is usual, it is something along the lines of "Have you ever been refused insurance or had special terms imposed" then yes you do have to disclose it, as the wording does not restrict the enquiry to car insurance.

if I saw this wording on a car insurance application I would take it as referring to car insurance only, so I would answer "No". What the hell has home insurance got to do with them?

hobo28

That must be the dafest interpretation I've heard an insurance company make. There's no logic in it for them or you.

If you had a flood or a fire would that be one incident or 257? They wouldn't count your sofa, TV, kitchen, carpet etc. all as seperate claims. To do it this way for one act of vandalism (albeit by your toddler) is just plain daft! I hope the FOS see sense. I'd also be tempted to see if you could get Watchdog interested.

FlameCloud

wishiwasarichgirl wrote: »

if I saw this wording on a car insurance application I would take it as referring to car insurance only, so I would answer "No". What the hell has home insurance got to do with them?

It has plenty to do with it. Why would you think it applies to car insurance only? The question asks about insurance in general, not any specific one.

FlameCloud

hobo28 wrote: »

That must be the dafest interpretation I've heard an insurance company make. There's no logic in it for them or you.

If you had a flood or a fire would that be one incident or 257? They wouldn't count your sofa, TV, kitchen, carpet etc. all as seperate claims. To do it this way for one act of vandalism (albeit by your toddler) is just plain daft! I hope the FOS see sense. I'd also be tempted to see if you could get Watchdog interested.

Hmm, I'm not sure. The definition of proximate cause is thus-

"The active efficient cause which sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independant source (Pawsey vs Scottish union, 1907ish)"

I believe that they are argueing that it wasnt inevitable that the toddlers would draw on another item after they had drawn on the first item, therefore making each item drawn on a seperate independant source (and a new loss). If this is correct (and I think it is, in a very strict interpretation of proximate case) then they are right to charge 8 excesses.

If you want to convince the FOS to treat it as one loss then you need to convince them that the proximate cause of the loss was that you left the toddlers alone in a room with a pen, and that it was therefore inevitable that they would draw on things. However, be aware that the insures may then turn around and look to repudiate on the basis that there was a lack of reasonable care if it was inevitable damage would occur in the first place.

Good luck with it!

missile

fad1211 wrote: »

i live in a really large house, and one day in 2006, i was ironing upstairs, and left cbeebies on for my two tots downstairs. They got hold of a permanent marker and marked all my furniture, carpets, walls etc. Thats about it. When i told my insurance company, they took all the details but when i followed up a week later, thats when they said it will be eight claims.I would not want to go with Liverpool Victoria again,

What a raw deal. I hope you get success from the ombudsman, please let me know how that goes