T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
void car insurance
During the bad weather we had in February, my son bumped into a car in front of him due to not being able to stop in the ice. The insurance company voided his insurance due to him not notifying them of modifications to his car. (Body kit and alloy wheels ) The car in front was damaged and the two passengers said they had whiplash injuries. My son has received a letter from the insurance company saying they will now come to him to recover the full amount claimed against them and he will be told the full amount in the next few days. Although he has a full time job, due to paying loans and other debts he has no money at all spare. What should he do when he gets the bill that he just can't pay ?Hope someone can advise.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anthony97. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately I think the bill he will get will certainly be for several thousand and with vehicle damage costs could be perhaps £10,000.
It therefore seems his total debts are likely to increase further. Selling the car seems a good way on saving, particularly as he may find insurance costs will be prohibitive now.
He could challenge the insurer's decision. I'm not an expert but In my experience I think it's unlikely he would win an appeal as insurers specifically ask this question and policyholders are obliged to notify the insurer of material changes. However some insurance experts on here may be able to give a more informed view.
It therefore seems his total debts are likely to increase further. Selling the car seems a good way on saving, particularly as he may find insurance costs will be prohibitive now.
He could challenge the insurer's decision. I'm not an expert but In my experience I think it's unlikely he would win an appeal as insurers specifically ask this question and policyholders are obliged to notify the insurer of material changes. However some insurance experts on here may be able to give a more informed view.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Calm down chaps - they are only modifications if they are permanently installed in your vehicle - a tow bar is - a portable sat nav is not. A new radio or alloys affect how attractive your car is to thieves so insurers are quite reasonable in expecting to know about them and charge extra if they wish.
Where a modification has not had any direct effect on the claim in question you might have a case for appealing against an insurers decision to void a policy and accept an increase in premium instead - but the insurer does not have to agree to this. I am afraid an accident involving non standard wheels and failure to stop would probably not come into this category. My understanding is that before your insurer would deal with a claim under the Road Traffic Acts (as Insurer concerned )your son should have had a court judgement brought against him - has this happened ?
Where a modification has not had any direct effect on the claim in question you might have a case for appealing against an insurers decision to void a policy and accept an increase in premium instead - but the insurer does not have to agree to this. I am afraid an accident involving non standard wheels and failure to stop would probably not come into this category. My understanding is that before your insurer would deal with a claim under the Road Traffic Acts (as Insurer concerned )your son should have had a court judgement brought against him - has this happened ?
No it hasn't. The events happened as follows... Ran into the back of the other car on the icy road..... My son reported it to his insurance company ........... They collected the car for repair ........... he got a tel call saying they were returning the car un-repaired due to not 'being as described'...... my son rang ins co, they said they were returning his monthy premiums paid and voiding insurance...... my son asked if he would be liable for any payments to the other party - over the phone they said NO. Of course this sounded too good to be true so I rang and asked what he had to expect ... they told me he would not hear any more from them. We now get the letter, 4 months later --- as expected I suppose as the people on the phone were probably clueless.
I would agree with much a what woozer says. Not long ago, insurance companies refused to pay out on claims based on the fact that a vehicle had been modified by fitting a roof-rack. The insurance ombudsman rules against them – this not being considered a ‘significant modification’.
If someone were to modify their car, say by fitting alloys, which would result in an increased premium due to the theft risk, and then had a serious accident which was their fault. Their insurance company cannot refuse to pay out to the other party, based on the vehicle having being modified. They may be able to make a small reduction in the percentage pay out for the fact that the full premium was not paid (for which the driver may have to make up the difference) or ask for the extra to be paid so that the correct total premium was paid– but they cannot just wash their hands of the whole situation, as they have done to your son.
Just shows what a bunch of crooks the insurance industry are.
If someone were to modify their car, say by fitting alloys, which would result in an increased premium due to the theft risk, and then had a serious accident which was their fault. Their insurance company cannot refuse to pay out to the other party, based on the vehicle having being modified. They may be able to make a small reduction in the percentage pay out for the fact that the full premium was not paid (for which the driver may have to make up the difference) or ask for the extra to be paid so that the correct total premium was paid– but they cannot just wash their hands of the whole situation, as they have done to your son.
Just shows what a bunch of crooks the insurance industry are.
Have at look at the insurance ombudsman’s web site for advice.
Normally they will not consider a case before it has been through the insurance company’s complaints process.
Personally I think that the insurance company concerned is on very dodgy ground having returned his payment for the insurance premium, wanting to wash their hands of the whole situation – this will look very bad should the matter come before the ombudsman.
Was your son insured fully comp? If so, he should be able to claim for some of his losses.
Make sure that you son keeps copies of all correspondence in relation to this matter – so that he can prove what has happened in court if necessary. My advice would be to communicate in writing with regards all dealings with this matter. If telephone calls have to be made, make a record of what was said and to whom – sending a précis in writing to the other party, confirming what was said/agreed.
As marval says – your son should get down to the Citizens Advice Bureau ASAP and ask for their advice.
Normally they will not consider a case before it has been through the insurance company’s complaints process.
Personally I think that the insurance company concerned is on very dodgy ground having returned his payment for the insurance premium, wanting to wash their hands of the whole situation – this will look very bad should the matter come before the ombudsman.
Was your son insured fully comp? If so, he should be able to claim for some of his losses.
Make sure that you son keeps copies of all correspondence in relation to this matter – so that he can prove what has happened in court if necessary. My advice would be to communicate in writing with regards all dealings with this matter. If telephone calls have to be made, make a record of what was said and to whom – sending a précis in writing to the other party, confirming what was said/agreed.
As marval says – your son should get down to the Citizens Advice Bureau ASAP and ask for their advice.
If your son was asked a question about modifications and he said there weren't any, then his insurers will have voided the policy due to misrepresentation and non-disclosure (technically different defences but are generally always raised at the same time, i.e, he misrepresented the fact that there were no modifications and didn't disclose the fact that were modifications).
Should this get legal, the insurers will apply the 'inducement test' per Pan Atlantic v Pine Top (1995) as far as materiality is concerned i,e were the insurers induced into entering the contract because thery were told there were no modifications or were not told there were modifications, and had they known they would not have entered in the contract.
Your son would need to demonstrate that even if the insurer had known about the modifications, the insurer would still have accepted the risk. However, where the court decides an item is a common material fact that insurers would want to know about (and modifications certainly are), then the contention that the insurer would have accepted the risk anyway is likely to fail.
This all goes back to the doctrine of utmost good faith. Your son knows more about his circumstances and car than the insurer does, and therefore your son has a positive duty to disclose everything that is likely to influence an underwriter's acceptance of a risk.
If they asked the question and your son lied, then there really is nothing he can do.
If they didn't ask the question, then your son must challenge the decision.
Should this get legal, the insurers will apply the 'inducement test' per Pan Atlantic v Pine Top (1995) as far as materiality is concerned i,e were the insurers induced into entering the contract because thery were told there were no modifications or were not told there were modifications, and had they known they would not have entered in the contract.
Your son would need to demonstrate that even if the insurer had known about the modifications, the insurer would still have accepted the risk. However, where the court decides an item is a common material fact that insurers would want to know about (and modifications certainly are), then the contention that the insurer would have accepted the risk anyway is likely to fail.
This all goes back to the doctrine of utmost good faith. Your son knows more about his circumstances and car than the insurer does, and therefore your son has a positive duty to disclose everything that is likely to influence an underwriter's acceptance of a risk.
If they asked the question and your son lied, then there really is nothing he can do.
If they didn't ask the question, then your son must challenge the decision.
I phoned my insurance broker today and told them that my radio/cd player had broken and I had removed it from the car and so could they reduce my premium, the guy asked me to say it all twice and then just said there was a £12 administration charge for any mid-term ammendment, I asked him how much less my premium was now that I had not got a radio in the car to temp theft and he said he would email my insurance company. I said that they needn't refund me the immediately , they could take it off my renewal quote, I think he was a bit bemused,
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
Body & Soul16 mins ago
