Home and Contents Insurance

[Brian Kirby]

Ooops!

[flicka]

Brian Kirby - 2012-05-05 5:12 PM

 

flicka - 2012-05-04 11:04 PM

 

I fully agree with sentiments based on your scenario, Brian.

 

What I think they mean is (although it does not say so) :-

"Someone who has a known pre-existing Medical Condition, who deliberately chooses not to consult a Doctor, knowing a Doctor would advise against travel."

 

IMO a clause written to cover one eventuallity, introduced no doubt to close a loophole , but not thought through to identify the full effect of it's wording.

 

Perhaps a referral to the "Plain English Society" , would be appropriate.

Precisely, John. It's just such a shame an organisation the size of Aviva doesn't employ someone with your command of English! Or do they? But then, why not let him/her write the clause. Hmmmmmmmmmm! Puzzle that, isn't it? What a dreadful cynic I am! :-D

 

Hi Brian

I seem to have spent a large part of my working life sifting through Clauses in Commercial Contracts, challenging them, getting down to what the other party intended them to mean versus what they actually mean, then either eliminating them or re-drafting them.

Although it can often be difficult to put in words what is actually meant & for what purpose. many are created as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event, (usually were there had been a financial loss.) with little effort to analyse the full implication of their words, despite many having been drafted by emminent members of the Legal profession.

If only it was the same for an individual, Companies (of all sizes ) flaunt their size, with a take it or leave it attitute, as opposed to actually reviewing their wording. But, then if they were to agree any change to any Clause, they simply increase their fee /Premium.

 

So, like you, cynical, YES very much so.