It pays to tell the truth!

[francisgraham]

I've just had a modest prang when I failed to spot an overhanging branch when reversing. 
The insurers asked for a copy of my driving licence, both paper and both sides of the photocard.

Fortunately, when applying for insurance with this firm I told the truth, in that I have no convictions and have had no accidents in the last five years.

This is the first time that an insurer has asked to see my licence but the assessor who came told me that it's now common practice.

I mention this because, whilst most people are honest, there is always the temptation to forget to mention the odd three points on your licence in the hope of getting a better deal and taking a chance that they will never know. As I said, most people won't take this chance but if anyone out there is tempted, you have been warned!

[Guest pelmetman]

Very true :D

 

Just renewed the insurance on my car with a new company, they asked the usual, any claims or accidents in the last 5 years, to which I replied no as I've had no accidents :D ...............bur then I remembered a replacement windscreen last year which I didn't think would affect the insurance :-S...............It sure did

8-)

 

So I suspect if I had not mentioned it and had an accident they would of used that as an excuse not to pay out *-)

[Big Momma]

Whilst we were on holiday earlier this year (Not in the Motorhome), the OH lost her wedding ring, I say lost, we know roughly whereabouts at the bottom of the Carribean Ocean it is :-S She was mighty upset but on our return we managed to find an exact match and purchased a replacement. We had of course purchased Travel Insurance which did cover us for Loss or Theft of Personal Posessions so submitted a claim.

 

The insurers came back and refused to accept liability as we had not reported the loss to the local police and obtained a crime report. I was not happy with this as no crime had been committed, it was a freak accident, she had not been mugged or robbed, we had not had it stolen it simply slipped off her finger whilst she was swimming. I challenged the initial decision and they came back and stated that they would review the claim. They then came back and still would not accept liability and told me that if I was not happy with this that i could complain using the set procedure (which they gave me).

 

I wrote a two page letter, again explaining the nature of the accidental loss and suggested that perhaps some Common Sense should be applied. I also suggested that refusal to settle the claim would only go to further the belief by the public that Insurers are prepared to take the insurance premium but do anything to prevent them from making a payment.

 

I received a letter stating that they were again reviewing the claim and that they would write to me again with their decision and that if I were unhappy with that I could take it to the Insurance Ombudsman. This felt a bit like a pre-emptive "Still not going to pay out but pretend we are looking in to it".

 

Some two weeks later, they wrote and stated that although the decision of the original insurance investigator was correct, that they had reviewed the content of my further communication and on this occasion, without accepting liability, were prepared to overule the original decision and would settle the claim in full.

 

I agree with the OP in that being honest is the only way to go with Insurance. However, being honest does not always mean that the Insurer will accept liability and sometimes, as was the case above, you have to be prepared to be tenacious with them and challenge some of their decisions.

[postnote]

Glad to read we have honest people in these forums.. B-)

[art338]

We tell the truth in that we never insure anything except that which the law states we must do.

 

Whatever we carry on touring days away we can afford to lose and therefore can never become tied into any legal jargon. The house is for obvious reasons but the contents, never.I see no point.

 

art

[Big Momma]

art338 - 2011-06-24 9:33 PM

 

We tell the truth in that we never insure anything except that which the law states we must do.

 

Whatever we carry on touring days away we can afford to lose and therefore can never become tied into any legal jargon. The house is for obvious reasons but the contents, never.I see no point.

 

art

 

With Home Contents it is not just loss that is covered but also accidental damage. At a previous house I was mowing the lawn with one of those flymo type grass cutters, it threw a stone up and it smashed the glass in one of the patio doors, not cheap to replace. Glass was covered in the policy and the insurance paid for a replacement. Under a lot of the Motorhome Insurance policies, personal contents are also covered up to a certain amount.

 

With the OH's wedding ring it was not the cost as we had already replaced it before we submitted the claim. It was the principle of purchasing travel insurance which covered accidental loss but the insurers trying to get out of paying that made me challenge their original decision.

[francisgraham]

art338 - 2011-06-24 9:33 PMWe tell the truth in that we never insure anything except that which the law states we must do.Whatever we carry on touring days away we can afford to lose and therefore can never become tied into any legal jargon. The house is for obvious reasons but the contents, never.I see no point.art

I would have thought that the point is pretty obvious! If your house burns down then the contents are insured. I suppose though that it all depends on how much your contents are worth.

My clothes alone would cost £20K to replace (several bespoke suits and other items) and I would guess that the entire contents of my house must add up to £50-60K. Presumably your contents aren't very valuable so you choose not to insure them and that's fine as long as you are happy to take the risk.

As for jargon, it is a myth about insurers wriggling out. As long as you read the terms you can't go wrong. If any insurer fails to fulfil the terms of his policy he is acting illegally. If however, people are foolish enough to take out insurance and not read the terms then that's their own fault.

As an example I was recently looking for breakdown cover and every insurer that I looked at had a maximum height of 3 metres. My 'van is under three metres but when I added a satellite dome it took it a few centimetres over three metres. Now for three or four centimetres I know some people who would take a chance and say that it is under 3 metres. But I won't and I eventually found an insurer at a reasonable price whose height limit was 3.2 metres.

I had occasion to use them in France when I had a puncture and the first questions asked were the dimensions of my 'van. I told them, all was fine and 35 minutes later a man rolled up and changed the wheel and took the tyre to his garage just up the river where he repaired it.

[Big Momma]

francisgraham - 2011-06-24 10:59 PMI had occasion to use them in France when I had a puncture and the first questions asked were the dimensions of my 'van. I told them, all was fine and 35 minutes later a man rolled up and changed the wheel and took the tyre to his garage just up the river where he repaired it.

I get your gist, however, the point I would make is what the hell did the height of you van have to do with getting a puncture. If the height of the van was not a contributory factor to the puncture then using it as a reason for not providing assistance is a nonsense.

[francisgraham]

Big Momma - 2011-06-24 11:29 PM

francisgraham - 2011-06-24 10:59 PMI had occasion to use them in France when I had a puncture and the first questions asked were the dimensions of my 'van. I told them, all was fine and 35 minutes later a man rolled up and changed the wheel and took the tyre to his garage just up the river where he repaired it.

I get your gist, however, the point I would make is what the hell did the height of you van have to do with getting a puncture. If the height of the van was not a contributory factor to the puncture then using it as a reason for not providing assistance is a nonsense.

I would have thought the reason is pretty obvious. If you have a breakdown they want to know the height of your vehicle just in case it has to be transported. In my case it was only a puncture but the tyre may have been shredded and I may not have carried a spare. My 'van may then have had to have been transported.

But you're missing the point anyway. They asked me the dimensions of my vehicle because it's a breakdown policy that covers me, in any vehicle that I own. It does not cover the vehicle. So they ask the size of the vehicle so as to ensure that a:It is within their terms and conditions b: It is of a suitable size to be transported.

This firm's maximum length is 10 metres I think so if I'd been in a converted bus that is 15 metres long, they'd have refused to come out and sort out my breakdown, and quite right too as their policy document quite clearly states the maximum dimensions it covers.

[602]

Hi,

 

I was tailgated at junction with a roundabout. I was stationary at the time of the impact. I could have kicked my car harder, but a cracked tailgate (Citroen BX) meant the car was a write-off.

 

The other pary's Insurance Assessor rolled up at my house, climbed out of his car with a tyre tread depth guage in his hand. I suspect that my claim would have been refused hadc my tyres been low on tread, despite my tyres having nothing to do with the accident.

 

602