This is very worrying... I'm going to have to check my policy...
Is my CB aerial a modification?!
Is my CB aerial a modification?!
A nice Christmas present for the driver involved.
www.autoexpress.co.uk
Driver whose towbar voided his insurance wins payout | Auto Express
Allianz tells Auto Express it was ‘right in principle’, but has agreed to cover the claim in full
www.autoexpress.co.uk
If the insurance company say it was "right in principle" then al least they should provide the policyholder with information what constitutes a modification to the vehicle. Would a swap from summer to winter tyres amount to a modification, for example?
Some drivers do advise their insurance company of such a change, and some companies don’t need it. I changed tyres on a SWB Pajero to give improved mud capability and higher ground clearance. They went from OEM 30 inch tyres to 33 inch tyres . The insurer just noted it with no conditions imposed.
Last edited:
These admin fees are a bit of a joke... £20 for a couple of seconds of computer code to run. Not like there's some clerk sat there rummaging through reams of paper to dig out my policy then doing a load of sums on a calculator.
The FOS decision though probably technically correct is a worry. Hopefully the FCA will take a different view.
Meanwhile as we are now seeing on a lot of Insurers, not all, e proposal forms questions about modifications are now included . The tow bar featured in a number I have seen.
Meanwhile as we are now seeing on a lot of Insurers, not all, e proposal forms questions about modifications are now included . The tow bar featured in a number I have seen.
Last edited:
Why do you see it as a worry? Its only an illegitimate concern if an antisocial owner is making modifications and doesn't want to declare them. By doing so they are causing all law abiding drivers extra expense becasue of the difficulties that arise if a claim has to be lodged against what is an uninsured driver.
The insurers are only asking proposers to be truthful, when did that become unfashionable?
The FOS are supposed to be the Final Arbiter before Legal Proceedings.
You too Prof know the difference between a Condition precedent to Policy Liability and dare I say a potential ambiguous “invitation “ to disclosure.
With so much on line inviting purchase of Insurance I believe it is encumbent on the Insurer to encourage disclosure of anything that may cause them to refuse covering the risk.
Disclosure has been raised a number of times in recent years and this has resulted in comprehensive on line questions being asked by Insurers. The trend is set. Those who don’t ask or give examples of what they seek leaves them on a sticky wicket imo.
The FOS here missed a serious error on the part of Allianz “request for disclosure “. Something they subsequently sought to use as a refusal of policy liability even though the tow bar had not one iota to do with the accident.
You have to ask on this case if the FOS decision was correct , why did the Allianz have a change of heart and support a motoring magazine ?
The fact here was , I suspect , Allianz didn’t ask the correct questions at Proposal stage which in itself maybe considered unfashionable😉
Hence the most unusual step where the Insurer actually contradicts an FOS decision in their favour.
Facebook
Twitter