Insured or Not?

I know someone who had "discrepancies" when they made a claim. The insurer just asked for the extra which would have been on the premium.

You'd think they wouldn't bother trying to hammer people over small technicalities and grey areas as it's unlikely to go far in court. Seems a waste of their resources.

Should have just said it was a pleasure visit if you didn't have commuting
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
I know someone who had "discrepancies" when they made a claim. The insurer just asked for the extra which would have been on the premium.

You'd think they wouldn't bother trying to hammer people over small technicalities and grey areas as it's unlikely to go far in court. Seems a waste of their resources.
Click to expand...
"Do you use the car to commute" No, "What were you doing when you crashed?" Commuting.

In this case there's no technicality or grey area. The OP was doing something they'd specifically said they wouldn't when buying the policy.
 
tom_e said:
"Do you use the car to commute" No, "What were you doing when you crashed?" Commuting.

In this case there's no technicality or grey area. The OP was doing something they'd specifically said they wouldn't when buying the policy.
Click to expand...
I think the grey area comes from whether the car was actually used for commuting or not. The OP had other activities before and after work and the car was parked near those activities rather than at work. Personally I think he was commuting and is screwed but that seems to be the angle that the solicitor is trying to use. Unfortunately for the OP he already admitted commuting to them.
 
Hades said:
I think the grey area comes from whether the car was actually used for commuting or not. The OP had other activities before and after work and the car was parked near those activities rather than at work. Personally I think he was commuting and is screwed but that seems to be the angle that the solicitor is trying to use. Unfortunately for the OP he already admitted commuting to them.
Click to expand...

If it was that easy a loophole then nobody would bother with commuting cover, they'd just "go for a walk in the park" or "pop to the shops" before and after starting work...
 
Hades said:
I think the grey area comes from whether the car was actually used for commuting or not. The OP had other activities before and after work and the car was parked near those activities rather than at work. Personally I think he was commuting and is screwed but that seems to be the angle that the solicitor is trying to use. Unfortunately for the OP he already admitted commuting to them.
Click to expand...
That's the crux of it really, the OP stated they were commuting it then becomes a "oh errr no I had some food errr so" when they found out they weren't covered. Nice and easy for the insurance company to just say "Pull the other one mate off you pop".
 
OP deserves to be screwed, deliberately lied to the insurer when taking out the policy about no commuting.
He has an accident then tries to wriggle out of the commuting exclusion by trying it on, typical chancer strategy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom