Varying a contract

[Segilla]

My insurance company have just sent a long list of amendments to the personal liability section of my household policy which I renewed in June.

'Unfortunately we omitted to notify you of the changes at the appropriate time. The changes are effective immediately'.

I've no quarrel with these new conditions but what about the law of contract? There is nothing in the policy to say that the company can vary the contract mid-term under these circumstances.

I believe that legally I have the right to reject them. Is this so?

If I'm right it seems high-handed at the very least for a first class insurer to act like this.

[SirOracle]

You are right in thinking that your Insurer cannot alter conditions mid term,unless you have somehow altered your circumstances.
Are you sure that these alterations are not "widening" your cover,and therefor are to your advantage?
There may be a clause somewhere in the policy allowing this alteration,but this would be very unusual.
You say this is a first class insurer,but don't state who they are.

[buildersmate]

I agree, it is pretty unlikely that they can do this mid-year, and you could write and reject the proposed changes to the conditions.

The downside is that they may have the immediate right to cancel the policy and reimburse you the full proportion of the annual premium for the rest of the year - check the T&Cs of the policy

[Segilla]

The new, wider exclusions far outweigh any wider cover on offer, but this was a query about a technicality really, to do with the law of contract.

I am a pensioner of the company mentioned and as I retired a very long time ago it may well be that they are not as 'first class' as they were in my day, when any kind of even mild chicanery was forbidden, generally spaeking policyholders were not subjected to pennypinching claims settlements or narrow interpretation of policies. Bad debts were only seldom passed to solicitors to threaten and we were not allowed to lean on people even if we knew they were concealing convictions and so on.
Premiums were not the cheapest inthe market which meant that we didn't have to do our underwriting at the time claims were made, looking for let -outs.

Times have changed.

Sounds lik a wolr farremoved form today's one.

[SirOracle]

Ah Segilla........how absolutely true. I put it down to the American influence in the main,which started encroaching the British Insurance market some 25 or 30 years ago.
So sad really but they call it progress!!!

[Segilla]

Yes, modern marketing methods from guess where influenced the companies to compete for the mass the market in the 1970s /80s.
When I first worked in insurance nobody was offered All Risk's cover except following recommendation. Suddenly the gates were flung open and in rushed (as my snobbish Acton manager would say 'the great unwashed).

The word got about that it was easy to get money from insurance companies. I had authority to settle claims at he counter for up to £250 - and it went against the grain.

After many years when my employer started to clamp down and backtrack on this too relaxed claims procedure, I commented at the meeting about it that I'd never thought it was a good idea. The Claims Manager glared at me and said, "You never changed!".

Then there was an arrangement offered for credit. At one time the policy of the company was not to offer credit because if you were unable to pay the full premium you probably didn't have enough money to run and maintain a car.
But we are way beyond that now, in a world I don't understand, where motor premiums have hugely increased due to fraud and it seems the companies being in league with all sorts of questionable hangers on.

[Canary42]

It's unbridled Capitalism as endorsed by the Eton Old Boys Brigade now running this country - to heck with the poor, needy, sick, disabled, just soak them all for the benefit of the rich.

[buildersmate]

You now seem to have widened the scope of your 'question' to rant on about why you shouldn't have to expect any variation in contract because you are a long-standing customer.

It doesn't work like that that - every year you are invited to re-accept the new offer of 12 months' insurance. I gave you the right answer to your narrower question - write and tell them if you don't like the retrospective change.

[Segilla]

I suggest, buildersmate, that you re-read whatever you are referring to and point out where I 'shouldn't have to expect any variation in contract because you are a long-standing customer.'

It's always best to read carefully before opining.

And I think it reasonable to infer from my long-standing connection with an Insurer that I don't need to be told about conditions surrounding renewal of an insurance contract.


.

[tonywiltshire]

A party to a contract has no right to insert post contract conditions but there may be a term that changes may be made. If the changes are all on one side you should complain and you have the ultimate option of not renewing or cancelling the agreement.

[plautus]

If you have a grievance you can always refer to the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977, as any first year law undergraduate will tell you.

[buildersmate]

Segilla

Ah, so the whole 'question' thing was a total rant from the start then, and not a 'question' at all.

Since you evidently have vast expertise in the area of insurance ('and I think it reasonable to infer from my long-standing connection with an Insurer that I don't need to be told about conditions surrounding renewal of an insurance contract'), I'm only sorry that I wasted your time (plus especially my own time) by advising you on the way around this 'problem' for which you knew the solution already.