Insurance company applying new stricter standards to policy

782378

Hi,

I don't want to give away too much detail in relation to my dispute but would appreciate any feedback.

I am currently in a 4 year dispute with an insurance company in relation to damage to my property.

When my policy was taken out,the policy document was very general in nature and structural damage requirements were open to interpretation.

10 years later my policy has now expired and the insurance company is refusing my claim. They are applying new strict damage guidelines that they have formulated. They now believe these new stricter guidllines should also apply to my policy. They argue that their new detailed guidelines have become accepted as a recognisable standards in the industry.

These new guidelines were only introduced in the final year of my policy and did not even exist for the first 9 years of the policy,therefore I am arguing that the insurance company should not be applying these new stricter limits to my policy as they were not in existence when I took out my policy.


Can anybody advise if an insurance company can apply new detailed criteria to a policy years after the policy was taken out?

coylemj

Is this a guarantee scheme covering subsidence? That's the only type of general (non-life) policy that I'm aware of that lasts more than 12 months.

Even if they change the terms and conditions, they cannot apply them retrospectively so whatever was written into the original policy is what applies but they can rewrite the Ts and Cs at the time of the next renewal so for most policies, they can change them every year and there's little you can about it other than go elsewhere.

Peregrinus

The important question is not whether the stricter terms were in the policy when you originally took it out, but whether they had been added to the policy by the time your claim arose. As coylemj says, the terms of property insurance policies will invariably allow the insurer to alter or add to the policy conditions at renewal time, and sometimes even between renewals.

To Elland Back

Agree with both of the above. The only grounds you have is if the damage manifested itself and was presented to insurers in one of the years prior to the change in the policy wording.

Every year is a new contract, which you either accept or reject in full by lapsing cover

782378

The policy is a 10 year structural guarantee which was included with the house when I purchased it

coylemj wrote: »

Is this a guarantee scheme covering subsidence? That's the only type of general (non-life) policy that I'm aware of that lasts more than 12 months.

coylemj

782378 wrote: »

The policy is a 10 year structural guarantee which was included with the house when I purchased it

That's the one I was thinking of. Is there an arbitration scheme laid down in the policy?

To Elland Back

Ah, I know the policy you are talking about. Can you provide the 'before and after' criteria they are basing their decision on?

782378

Hello Elland Back,


I don't quite understand your question but do not want to give away too much specific information in relation to the case. What I can say is my policy document is very general, My experts and their experts disagree, about whether I should be covered or not. My experts are making their conclusions based on their opinion and basing their liability assertion on an ambiguous policy document. Their experts a basing their opinion on stricter retrospectively introduced standards that did not exist, when the policy was initially issued.

To Elland Back wrote: »

Ah, I know the policy you are talking about. Can you provide the 'before and after' criteria they are basing their decision on?

I can confirm that there is no arbitration scheme laid down in the policy

coylemj

782378 wrote: »

Can anybody advise if an insurance company can apply new detailed criteria to a policy years after the policy was taken out?

No they can't but as you've said, the original wording is open to interpretation so it's down to which interpretation (theirs or yours) should apply. If the original wording was too vague then it was inevitable that some people would end up in your situation.

I would try to pursue this via the Dept. of the Environment who would typically oversee this type of scheme, failing that you may have to take it up with the Insurance Ombudsman.

To Elland Back

If there is ambiguity in an insurance policy, it must fall in favour of the policyholder. That is different from not understanding the wording in question or having a different opinion as to its meaning from the accepted use of the wording. It is down to the legal eagles to thrash that one out until it's conclusion

By 'before and after criteria', I'm trying to find out what changed. Are we talking Homebond here?

NUTLEY BOY

To Elland Back wrote: »

If there is ambiguity in an insurance policy, it must fall in favour of the policyholder. That is different from not understanding the wording in question or having a different opinion as to its meaning from the accepted use of the wording. It is down to the legal eagles to thrash that one out until it's conclusion

By 'before and after criteria', I'm trying to find out what changed. Are we talking Homebond here?

+1.

The contra proferentem rule.