Derek Uzzell Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Brian: If you refer back to Peter Cue's explanation of what occurred, I believe you'll find that the loading placed by Admiral's underwriter on the insurance premium for Mike's car was simply for 'non disclosure' of the Italian incident. The question of blame, or the possibility of a claim materialising in the far-flung future, was not a factor in the decision to increase the premium. Essentially, the increase can be perceived as a 'punishment' for Mike not disclosing the incident. It was up to Mike to accept that 'punishment' or not, and I don't think he has ever revealed whether he did choose to insure with Admiral subsequently. What I have found startling about this thread is that it soon developed into a whirlpool of insurance-related discussion, but never seemed to focus on the most significant point - that Admiral Car Insurance's treatment of Mike (justified or unjustified, deserved or undeserved, harsh or fair, whatever...) had nothing to do with Comfort Insurance as far as any criticism is concerned. I continue to wonder if this matter is being discussed on other motorhome forums, but without Peter Cue's input to balance the factual scales. I also feel that, in the Good Old MMM-forum Days, Peter Sharpe would very rapidly have applied a Moderating influence to the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Derek Uzzell - 2007-05-21 8:33 AM I also feel that, in the Good Old MMM-forum Days, Peter Sharpe would very rapidly have applied a Moderating influence to the subject. What you mean censored it and stopped any discussion for advertising ends??? Hmmmm! Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjmike Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 Just by way of information I have asked both the forum moderator and Peter Cue (via his son) to edit Comforts posting.I do not object to Comfort posting their point of view, but do object to them using both my surname and details without my permission, breaking data protection regulations. I have waited until now to post this therby giving both Comfort and the forum mods time to act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nish Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 fjmike - 2007-05-21 12:44 PM Just by way of information I have asked both the forum moderator and Peter Cue (via his son) to edit Comforts posting.I do not object to Comfort posting their point of view, but do object to them using both my surname and details without my permission, breaking data protection regulations. I have waited until now to post this therby giving both Comfort and the forum mods time to act Your request was done by myself on Saturday shortly after your conversation with us (email sent 12.09pm) and another chase up to admin was sent today (11.05am). I cannot edit the post myself due to a time restriction set on the forum. Many thanks, Nish Comfort Insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I agree with most of what you say, Derek, especially with your comments regarding Comfort not being responsible for Admiral's actions and having been somewhat unfairly put in the firing line. However, I think that, notwithstanding this error, the discussion has probably be informative and useful overall and, for that reason, I would not favour "pulling" it. A bit like playing the "advantage rule"! It seems to have revealed a number of "popularly held misconceptions" on the part of contributors, regarding their obligations to their insurers. It also seems to have shown that some contributors don't like having these obligations pointed out!I think it also usefully reveals several grey areas in dealing with insurance claims. If you happen to be present when someone causes minor, easily repaired damage, to your vehicle, for which you do not intend claiming, should you notify your insurer? If, on the other hand, you return to your parked vehicle to find it has suffered such damage while you were away, what then should you do? Notify your insurer as caused by "person or persons unknown", or just get on and fix it? Then again, if the incident was notified - say as a precaution against an exaggerated claim being submitted at a later date by the other party - but no claim actually ensued, why should it be expected that you should repeat the notification to another insurer two years later? Why should you not be entitled to conclude that as no claim had ensued, the issue was dead? How long are these notifications expected to live, and what are the rules by which insurers handle them? These sorts of minor damage incidents are quite common, in supermarket car parks to name but a few places, and the rules governing their notification, and the consequences of so doing, or not doing, do not seem to be widely understood. As an example, and I don't think I'm being totally silly here, my policy says "As soon as reasonably possible after an accident, injury, loss or damage, you or your legal representatives must telephone us giving full details of the incident." There is no definition in the policy to aid interpretation of any of these terms. As written, the policy appears to require everything to be declared, broken nails, chipped paint, lost cigarette lighters etc - the lot! However, such matters are so trivial they cannot reasonably have been anticipated as grounds for notification. The insured is thus clearly expected to exercise some common-sense judgement in what s/he reports. However, we will all exercise that judgement differently, quite apart from the effects of circumstances on our judgement. Some will be of the view that if there is no damage to their vehicle, no notification is required. Others will notify notwithstanding. Some will decide that if repairing damage to their vehicle will cost below their excess and loss of NCD, they will just pay for the repairs out of their own pocked and not notify. Others may decide to claim, others again may decide merely to notify. And so on. With such variation in what is notified, and why, it seems unreasonable that an insurer can make his own interpretation of the circumstances, without further consultation, and impose what amount to summary penalties. The underlying concept of a contract is that, whatever it says, its application must be legal and reasonable. This matter of notification of, and penalising for, minor damage notifications where no claim results, is unreasonable and perverse. At least it needs clarification. If Peter is still monitoring what is said on here, I do think it would be immensely beneficial if he could spare the time to shed some light on how this procedure is supposed to work, and what we should, and should not, in principle, notify to insurers.Notwithstanding the above, I have to say that I did not draw quite the same clarity of meaning from Peter's comments as you appear to have, regarding the actual reason Admiral increased Mike's premium. However, that is between Admiral and Mike, and even if Peter knows, I doubt he'd want to go into it any further on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Brian, As usual clear and concise summing up, thank you. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I'd like to contribute a general tip which might be helpful for some people. When getting quotes, if you are male and your OH has a good driving record, always ask for two quotes - one with her as a named driver and one without, even if you would not normally have her as a named driver on your policy. You may be surprised to find that with some companies the premium is cheaper with her on the policy than without. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nish Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Hi Brian, Peter is out of the office for now. When he is back, he will reply to your questions and any other questions he feels needs to be answered. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Thanks Nish. I think that will be much appreciated. Without reference to the specifics of Mike's case, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.