Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Disclosing Accident - No Claim
-
03-08-2011 3:04pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Henry Ford III wrote: »A mere matter of opinion I'd suggest.
What if there had been a series of the accidents? Wouldn't a prudent underwriter view the risk differently? Wouldn't it suggest the proposer was a poor/careless driver?
Whilst I do see your point I fear you may be misled on what an Underwriter can discriminate for.
I really don't want to strip the underwriting process down as we could be here all night but generally motor insurance systems act on balance. If the scales tips then it is referred to an Underwriter for their input.
Where do you draw the line though with accidents though ? Stone Chip ? Bump a Shopping Trolley ? Bounce of a wall in a Shopping Center ? Scrape the bumper off a kerb ? I hit a tree once, took the bump out with a Hair Dryer which was a big deal as I am bald and buying a hair dryer when bald gets you odd looks.
Point is though that generally, if there has been no claim then there is no elevated risk as the client has either dealt with it privately or it was of such insignificance that it did not merit mentioning.
There are the odd exception to the rule however, I once had a case handed to me where some lad was on 6 about 4 months into his policy. We cancelled his policy and refunded what was due for the remainder of his policy.
Take it from the other side though. Lets say the OP hit a tree, had no Third Party damage and fixed his own damage and the Insurer found out the next year when he put an RTA claim in and cancelled his policy due to the Non Disclosure.
Then the OP goes to the ombudsman for a ruling. The Ombudsman would use the Central Banks CPC and determine that as the Non Disclosure of information would not have had an effect of 40% or MORE on the premium that the company could not avoid the policy and would have to indemnify the loss as an accident not treated as a No Claim and with no RTA damage would not effect the policy.
A number of "No Claims" however could raise eyebrows and attract attention but in this instance, it would not as there was never really a claim.
I'm usually on your side here Henry but I have to disagree this time !0 -
Thanks for an informative post! What do (if any) do you think would be the effect on the premium were the OP to disclose the accident?Whilst I do see your point I fear you may be misled on what an Underwriter can discriminate for.
I really don't want to strip the underwriting process down as we could be here all night but generally motor insurance systems act on balance. If the scales tips then it is referred to an Underwriter for their input.
Where do you draw the line though with accidents though ? Stone Chip ? Bump a Shopping Trolley ? Bounce of a wall in a Shopping Center ? Scrape the bumper off a kerb ? I hit a tree once, took the bump out with a Hair Dryer which was a big deal as I am bald and buying a hair dryer when bald gets you odd looks.
Point is though that generally, if there has been no claim then there is no elevated risk as the client has either dealt with it privately or it was of such insignificance that it did not merit mentioning.
There are the odd exception to the rule however, I once had a case handed to me where some lad was on 6 about 4 months into his policy. We cancelled his policy and refunded what was due for the remainder of his policy.
Take it from the other side though. Lets say the OP hit a tree, had no Third Party damage and fixed his own damage and the Insurer found out the next year when he put an RTA claim in and cancelled his policy due to the Non Disclosure.
Then the OP goes to the ombudsman for a ruling. The Ombudsman would use the Central Banks CPC and determine that as the Non Disclosure of information would not have had an effect of 40% or MORE on the premium that the company could not avoid the policy and would have to indemnify the loss as an accident not treated as a No Claim and with no RTA damage would not effect the policy.
A number of "No Claims" however could raise eyebrows and attract attention but in this instance, it would not.
I'm usually on your side here Henry but I have to disagree this time !0 -
-
-
Whilst I do see your point I fear you may be misled on what an Underwriter can discriminate for.
I really don't want to strip the underwriting process down as we could be here all night but generally motor insurance systems act on balance. If the scales tips then it is referred to an Underwriter for their input.
Where do you draw the line though with accidents though ? Stone Chip ? Bump a Shopping Trolley ? Bounce of a wall in a Shopping Center ? Scrape the bumper off a kerb ? I hit a tree once, took the bump out with a Hair Dryer which was a big deal as I am bald and buying a hair dryer when bald gets you odd looks.
Point is though that generally, if there has been no claim then there is no elevated risk as the client has either dealt with it privately or it was of such insignificance that it did not merit mentioning.
There are the odd exception to the rule however, I once had a case handed to me where some lad was on 6 about 4 months into his policy. We cancelled his policy and refunded what was due for the remainder of his policy.
Take it from the other side though. Lets say the OP hit a tree, had no Third Party damage and fixed his own damage and the Insurer found out the next year when he put an RTA claim in and cancelled his policy due to the Non Disclosure.
Then the OP goes to the ombudsman for a ruling. The Ombudsman would use the Central Banks CPC and determine that as the Non Disclosure of information would not have had an effect of 40% or MORE on the premium that the company could not avoid the policy and would have to indemnify the loss as an accident not treated as a No Claim and with no RTA damage would not effect the policy.
A number of "No Claims" however could raise eyebrows and attract attention but in this instance, it would not as there was never really a claim.
I'm usually on your side here Henry but I have to disagree this time !
Yes, and I can see where you are coming from, but the question isn't really to do with underwriting practice, or what a negative a potential referral to the Ombudsman might produce. It's more to do with what info. might arrive on your desk, or not. Any discrimination would be against the insurer at proposal stage.
I've no idea where the line is drawn, but I presume the concept of materiality applies.
An example:-
Driver with say 4 points for speeding. He's had a crash, written off his car, but he's wealthy enough to absorb it financially. The Guards weren't interested because there was no 3rd party damage or injury. Would this require disclosure? There was no claim here either after all.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Henry Ford III wrote: »Ah come on for goodness sake CiniO!
It's pretty obvious what was going on there.
Maybe it's obvious, maybe not.
Most likely you are right.
But can you prosecute or penalize anyone, without proving guilty??
I thought one of the general rules of law was, that one can't be prosecuted until proven guilty.
I was rear ended once in my life, and there was really nothing I could do to prevent it.
I know that being rear ended 6 times in 4 months, is almost so unlikely like winning LOTTO, but we all have to admit it's not impossible. Hence people still win LOTTO, even it's so unlikely.0 -
-
-
Does that mean that yourself and Henry Ford III are in agreement that the best thing for the OP is to just declare it?
Nah, I still wouldn't bother.Maybe it's obvious, maybe not.
Most likely you are right.
But can you prosecute or penalize anyone, without proving guilty??
I thought one of the general rules of law was, that one can't be prosecuted until proven guilty.
I was rear ended once in my life, and there was really nothing I could do to prevent it.
I know that being rear ended 6 times in 4 months, is almost so unlikely like winning LOTTO, but we all have to admit it's not impossible. Hence people still win LOTTO, even it's so unlikely.
"We the company reserve the right to cancel your policy without giving a reason upon giving you 14 days notice issued to you by registered post. We will refund any premium owed to you for the remainder of the policy."
I never said that persons Geographical location however a certain few area's to the east of Dublin (and over the pond) have people who tend to drive around with blue ribbons on their tow bars. This is an invitation to hit the rear in order to claim and split the difference.
I really really really really cannot spell it out any clearer than that for you. Nobody get's hit 6 times from the back in 4 months and frankly, if they do, I don't really want the headache of explaining why I kept them on the books.Henry Ford III wrote: »This is good stuff MugMugs!
I'd argue there was gross non disclosure. Look at the proposal form questions..."have you had any accidents, claims, or convictions" or the online u/w's assumptions.
Financial loss was zero, but there was pretty blatant non disclosure. Utmost good faith? Nah.
We should have an Insurance war some time ! It'd be fun. (Oh god I need to get a life
........... ) 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement