Part P. Again. Legally.

Jan 21, 2008 44 Replies

The message

from snipped-for-privacy@mailbolt.com contains these words:

  1. Not all non-disclosure is material
  2. Non-disclosure which is non-material may provide grounds for non-renewal of a contract or even for a discontinuation of a contract, but does not normally invalidate a claim if that has occurred.
  3. Even disclosure which is material does not necessarily invalidate a claim, though it may reduce the terms of the payment

No-one has said that material non-diclosure doesn't exist -- but we have discussed the matter of how material non-disclosure is normally handled.

No-one is arguing that in order to make an insurance contract voidable you need either a misrepresentation or a breach of warranty, but those are the circumstances in which an insurance company is likely to cease cover. In fact, when a problem is discovered part way through the insurance term and the insurers cease cover, the whole premium is not normally returned -- as in the case I mentioned relating to my own motor cover on one vehicle. In the real world it would normally be something pretty drastic to provoke a return of the whole premium and a regarding of the policy as void ab initio.

They would not want to waste effort screwing each other now would they?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:12:54 GMT,it is alleged that Appin spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

[snip]

Not denying this happens, anything companies do fails to surprise me, but wouldn't this be specifically against the data protection act? IE, they have no permission to be sharing private information? Or am I misreading the said act?

Read the blurb next time you change insurers, they make you consent to this as part of the terms.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required