Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • The Offside Rule
    • By The Offside Rule 4th Dec 19, 11:49 AM
    • 91Posts
    • 4Thanks
    The Offside Rule
    Legal Insurance for Employment Tribunal
    • #1
    • 4th Dec 19, 11:49 AM
    Legal Insurance for Employment Tribunal 4th Dec 19 at 11:49 AM
    Good morning all - I'm not sure if this should be in this forum or the Employment one.

    Anyway, can anybody advise on whether an insurer would pay Tribunal legal fees if an employee added legal cover to their home insurance just after being dismissed?

    An appeal meeting has been requested and could possibly end up in Tribunal.

    Thanks!
Page 1
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 4th Dec 19, 1:31 PM
    • 1,294 Posts
    • 779 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 19, 1:31 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 19, 1:31 PM
    I doubt it, as the event which caused the tribunal has happened.
    • sal_III
    • By sal_III 4th Dec 19, 1:40 PM
    • 1,694 Posts
    • 1,560 Thanks
    sal_III
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 19, 1:40 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 19, 1:40 PM
    I highly doubt it, as the insurance events has sort of already happened. You can call some insurance providers and ask.

    On the side not, read carefully what the home insurances legal cover covers. Last time I was looking at comparison sites all of the cheap quotes that included legal cover, where only covering a hand full of obscure events and where only there to tick a box for hasty money savers.
    • The Offside Rule
    • By The Offside Rule 4th Dec 19, 1:52 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    The Offside Rule
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 19, 1:52 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 19, 1:52 PM
    Oh no. I was hoping that because the process of arranging a tribunal haven't yet been made, it wouldn't be classed as an ongoing issue.
    • Weighty1
    • By Weighty1 4th Dec 19, 2:07 PM
    • 652 Posts
    • 334 Thanks
    Weighty1
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 19, 2:07 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 19, 2:07 PM
    Oh no. I was hoping that because the process of arranging a tribunal haven't yet been made, it wouldn't be classed as an ongoing issue.
    Originally posted by The Offside Rule
    That's almost akin to wanting to add flood cover to a home insurance policy when the water is lapping at the door but has yet flooded the house.
    • Old Lifer
    • By Old Lifer 4th Dec 19, 5:12 PM
    • 158 Posts
    • 87 Thanks
    Old Lifer
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 19, 5:12 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 19, 5:12 PM
    The general insurance principle of 'utmost good faith' requires that if you intend adding legal cover to your policy you must advise your insurer of this possible claim.
    • nick74
    • By nick74 4th Dec 19, 5:40 PM
    • 377 Posts
    • 289 Thanks
    nick74
    • #7
    • 4th Dec 19, 5:40 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Dec 19, 5:40 PM
    That's almost akin to wanting to add flood cover to a home insurance policy when the water is lapping at the door but has yet flooded the house.
    Originally posted by Weighty1
    Strangely enough I was in a very similar situation last month with business insurance when a river near our compound was about to burst it's banks. I phoned the insurer to increase the cover, fully expecting them to say no, but they didn't. As it turned out it was a very good gamble on their part as the water didn't actually reach our yard, but they gained an extra 3k in premiums!
    • davidwatts
    • By davidwatts 4th Dec 19, 6:51 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 230 Thanks
    davidwatts
    • #8
    • 4th Dec 19, 6:51 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Dec 19, 6:51 PM
    The general insurance principle of 'utmost good faith' requires that if you intend adding legal cover to your policy you must advise your insurer of this possible claim.
    Originally posted by Old Lifer
    No it doesn't. You only have to answer specific questions that you are asked when applying. Unless you are asked if you are aware of any circumstances that could give rise to a claim you don't need to advise them of these circumstances. The days of customers having to disclose any additional information that might influence a "prudent insurer" are long gone. (2012's Consumer Insurance Act formalised the position.)

    It is the policy wording that is likely to ensure that a circumstance like this would not be covered.
    • The Offside Rule
    • By The Offside Rule 4th Dec 19, 7:14 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    The Offside Rule
    • #9
    • 4th Dec 19, 7:14 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Dec 19, 7:14 PM
    When I phoned to add the cover to my existing home insurance policy, I was asked no questions whatsoever. Could that be because I've six years no claims?
    • davidwatts
    • By davidwatts 4th Dec 19, 8:07 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 230 Thanks
    davidwatts
    Nope. Insurers don't tend to ask any specific questions relating to this add on and don't really class using the Legal Expenses cover as a claim in the same way they would loss or damage to property.

    Everyone will be asked the same questions regardless of how many years no claims they have.
    • Old Lifer
    • By Old Lifer 4th Dec 19, 9:14 PM
    • 158 Posts
    • 87 Thanks
    Old Lifer
    It is some years now since I took my Chartered Insurance Institute exams, so I looked on the CII website and my understanding is the 2012 Act only modified the duty not to misrepresent a material fact in a consumer insurance contract. I understand the 2015 Insurance Act further modified this and lists remedies available to the insurer where a material fact is withheld.


    The insured is seeking to extend the policy to provide a new area of cover. In my view, the fact that there is a potential claim in the pipeline is a material fact and should be disclosed.


    Accident Insurance (Household & Motor) is not my speciality. Perhaps someone who actually works in Home Insurance may have thoughts on this.
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 4th Dec 19, 10:02 PM
    • 1,294 Posts
    • 779 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    I've just checked the LV home insurance wording, as it's one I'm familiar with.
    It would cover employment tribunal costs providing the insured event happened in the policy period.

    Insured event is then defined as:
    "The start of an individual or series of events that may lead to a claim under this section.
    We’ll treat all events related by cause or time as one.
    The insured event will be treated as occurring on the date that you first became aware of the start of an individual or series of events, problems or disputes covered under this insurance
    ."

    So, for this policy, the OP wouldn't be covered, as the insured event has already begun.
    • davidwatts
    • By davidwatts 5th Dec 19, 5:50 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 230 Thanks
    davidwatts
    So, for this policy, the OP wouldn't be covered, as the insured event has already begun.
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy
    Absolutely, and the same policy also excludes employment claims occurring within 90 days of the start of cover. I thought I'd seen such a provision in respect of this aspect of LEI cover. I looked at another firm's policy and it's excluded for 120 days. Obviously to protect insurers against the scenario where the customer had an idea that something might happen.

    I think this element of the cover is fairly generic so would say you've got no chance of finding an insurer who would provide cover in the OP's circumstances under what is, after all, known as "before the event" legal cover!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,039Posts Today

6,539Users online

Martin's Twitter