Insurance problems

Satanta

Hi,

Hypothetically speaking if the following situation came to be:

A person receives a disqualification from driving. They are a named driver on another persons insurance policy at the time and the insurance broker had been informed of the disqualification.

After the ban is finished person then looks for an insurance quote through a different broker and gets a very favorable one and pays for it. They then are told that the insurance company needs some further information before they finalise the policy. That being a letter from the previous insurer stating when they were informed of the ban. Turns out the original broker did not pass the information on to the insurance company. The new policy is refused on the basis of non disclosure. The person now has to disclose this to any other companies and ends up paying 3 times the original quote.

My question is does the original broker have a case to answer here? Was he legally obliged to pass on the information?
Thanks

coylemj

Hypothetically I'd say it stinks, the broker doesn't really have any role here, the insurance company should have been notified directly. If the broker was notified and didn't pass on the information I'd say why should he have bothered informing the insurance company if you (hypothetically) weren't bothered doing it yourself?

As I see it the broker is the agent acting on your behalf who trawls the market and gets you a good price but once the policy is in place the contract is between you and the insurance company so the broker has role to play in terms of what communication is supposed to happen between the insured (the policyholder) and the insurance company. Hypothetically that is.

Our man in Havana

Problem being when a broker is involved, the insurance company will often ignore any contact directly from the policyholder and direct all comms to be via the broker.

One reason to always deal direct.

coylemj

In that case (insurance company will only deal with the broker), the broker is acting as an agent and any communication to him is legally a communication to the insurance company.

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

In that case (insurance company will only deal with the broker), the broker is acting as an agent and any communication to him is legally a communication to the insurance company.

But who is the broker an agent for? Traditionally, the insured, but cynically the insurer.

Our man in Havana

I was told by a major insurance company here that does not sell direct to the public, that the insurance policy is a contract between the broker and insurer, and that my contract is with the broker and not the insurance company despite the fact they have issued a certificate of insurance to me. The result of this was they would not deal with my queries regarding the policy thus directing me back to the broker.

In the end I referred the matter to the Financial Services Ombudsman, said insurance company were then not long in resolving the matter to my satisfaction. After that I have resolved never to use brokers again.

coylemj

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I was told by a major insurance company here that does not sell direct to the public, that the insurance policy is a contract between the broker and insurer, and that my contract is with the broker and not the insurance company despite the fact they have issued a certificate of insurance to me. The result of this was they would not deal with my queries regarding the policy thus directing me back to the broker.

I can understand why they would want you to deal with them via the broker but I can't see how the contract of insurance could be considered to be between the broker and the insured for the simple reason that the broker would not legally be permitted to write an insurance policy. At the end of the day the broker is just an intermediary.

The insurance company may be within their rights to insist that the customer channels all communications through the broker but the contract surely is between the insured and the insurance company.