| Author | Message | ||
     Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.89 |
Utmost good faith. This is what underpins the contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured. It is emshrined in the insurance act. This means that if you lie to the insurance guys they will accept it as true. If there is a claim then they check if you have lied then third party damages will paid but not your own car because you lied and our very brave police may nick you. The insurance may take civil action and win. Lying to an insurance co is a specific offence. The cost of the policy is not really heavily influenced by the value of the car. Because a car could crash onto railway lines and derail a train and another train hit the wreckage. Which happened in the UK and cost £50 million and the drivers insurance co paid it. So when my mate suggests that I tell my insurance that I am an office worker to get cheap insurance. I ignore it. I tell them material fact even if they don't ask. Because utmost good faith includes declaring anything that would effect the risk such as one arm missing. But of course RR owners know all this and the above is obvious and commonsense. Trouble is the bloke in the pub thinks it is a load of cods and who cares and tells fibs to get cheap insurance and thinks he is street wise. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Mark Aldridge Prolific User Username: mark_aldridge Post Number: 143 Registered: 10-2008 |
Bob, I wonder if the spotty faced erks with aftermarket wide wheels and ultralow suspension coupled with unheard of tyres ( all of which are far superior to the huge research and investment in the original design)illegal HID lamps all tell their insurers.One such specimen rolled a Golf on a roundabout near home recently, which caused a huge traffic jam and "entertained" the boys in blue. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.89 |
Don't be silly of course not because their dads filled out proposal. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 570 Registered: 1-2008 |
My idiot nephew decided to claim he was a welder on his insurance application form as it sounded more important than 'warehouse operative'. To be fair he was working as a welder at the time (chemically welding plastic components), but it was only temporary with a view to it becoming permanent. When he crashed the car I gave him into the back of another one while racing home for a lunchtime puff of weed the insurance company queried his bosses about his real employment terms. By then he was back to being a shelf stacker and they were told as much. His insurance was immediately declared void and it cost him a bundle of cash to settle the claim - nearly all of which he didn't have. As this was the second similar incident in the same year he cannot afford to both run and insure a car again: Third Party Only would cost him £100 per week! | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 928 Registered: 6-2009 |
When I read stories such as the one by Mr. Forrest I become ever more grateful for the way automobile insurance works where I live. My insurance company doesn't give a flying rat's patoot about what my employment is, they're only concerned about it as it relates to daily mileage. I don't recall ever having been asked about what my job is with regard to my automobile insurance. My satisfaction, or the lack thereof, with health insurance is another matter entirely. Brian | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.73 |
Brian Trouble with not checking a proposers occupation is that the underwriters will add extra to all premiums to spread the risk of taking on certain occupations such as rock and roll lead singer. George Michael. So the safe occupations such as officer worker pay more than necessary. However it does make stuff easier if the question are less. If the premium are cheap then who cares. A 18 year old will pay loads. Boys are more likely to completely wreak a car where as girls have dings. So the insurers wanted to charge more for the boys which is sex discrimination so the girls have to subsidize the boys which my wife thinks is typical man trick of getting the girls to pay for drinks. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 573 Registered: 1-2008 |
Insurance companies were recently forced to stop the gender preference terms for working out premiums. Boys still pay the same, but girls have to pay more. Hoorah for non sexual discrimination - er ... NOT! | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.84 |
Which why blind obedience to ideology produces bad law. Which the civil service tries to sabotage as in Yes Minister UK comedy show. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 578 Registered: 1-2008 |
When asked the question "Just how close to the truth are the sketches in 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister'?", most real life ministers responded along the lines of "Frighteningly close!", "You really don't want to know" or "They must be bugging the Cabinet Room!". |
