Convictions

[des8]

Re: Convictions

Well I have just checked through a dozen or so proposal forms, and the question asked is still the fairly standard question that I have seen over the past 40 odd years that I have been involved in the industry, and is still what was in use when I took my CII exams. Some insurers have modified it slightly to refer to the 1974 Act.
However the Act will still apply to any proposal and overrides the doctrine of Uberrima fides

[CleverClogs]

Re: Convictions

ALL convictions? For ever? Are you sure? Because that would not appear to be standard practice and would appear to be in contravention of the law.

Hast thou forgotten in the Gospel according to St John, Chapter 18, verse 40: "Now, Barrabas was an Insurance underwriter."?

If an insurance company can find any excuse to refuse a claim or to reduce a payment, they will !

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions

I am wondering if it would be advisable for the OP to disclose and then, if the insurer discriminates, refer to the FOS for adjudication.

if my memory serves me correctly, there is supposed to be new legislation coming into force this year to force the insurance industry to be clearer as to what information they require in order to make a decision to provide cover.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Convictions

It seems like this is one of those 'utmost good faith' issues, which insurers use ad nauseum as a 'get out of jail free' card.

The doctrine is based on Maritime Laws.

Does it apply to a FMOL? :behindsofa:

[charitynjw]

Re: Convictions

Does it apply to a FMOL? :behindsofa:

Blimey, CC, don't kick their kennel, I beg you! :fear:

[des8]

Re: Convictions

Hast thou forgotten in the Gospel according to St John, Chapter 18, verse 40: "Now, Barrabas was an Insurance underwriter."?

If an insurance company can find any excuse to refuse a claim or to reduce a payment, they will !

Whereas of course all policy holders are squeaky clean, never give false information, never inflate a genuine claim and never ever make a false claim

[charitynjw]

Re: Convictions

Whereas of course all policy holders are squeaky clean, never give false information, never inflate a genuine claim and never ever make a false claim

11th Commandment - Thou shall not get caught! :hat:

[des8]

Re: Convictions

It seems like this is one of those 'utmost good faith' issues, which insurers use ad nauseum as a 'get out of jail free' card.

The doctine is based on Maritime Laws.

No it's not.
It was a doctrine first expounded in the 18th Century during a dispute over a claim which the insurers declined because the proposer with held material information. There was an attempt to make it apply to all contracts, but basically it only stuck with insurance because the insurer has to rely on the other party disclosing all information. The duty does apply the other way, and if the insurer knows of something which means there is no risk he must decline the proposal.An example of this is running in another thread about insurers declining to pay out following a cancelled flight. They claim the proposer knew the flight was likely to be cancelled....but by the same standards they knew that as well and so should not have charged to cover that particular risk!

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions

Whereas of course all policy holders are squeaky clean, never give false information, never inflate a genuine claim and never ever make a false claim

The insurance industry isn't exactly as pure as the driven snow. I've caught claims handlers, supervisors, superintendents and managers lying through their teeth in order to avoid paying out or handing back additional premiums they have extorted from policyholders.

When I was a police officer, I had some individual from a claims department ring me up bleating about a report I had written relating to an RTC I had attended. Apparently, the report wasn't to their liking and could I change it. When I told him, in no uncertain terms, that the report would not be changed, he kicked off and was quite abusive. One phone call to the police force that was local to this individual's office and they went round and had a very firm chat with him. Later on, I received a phone call from his claims superintendent, apologising profusely about his junior colleague's conduct.

There will always be a minority who will rip-off the insurance industry, but if the insurance industry wants to gain the moral high ground, it seriously needs to get its own house in order first before publicly bleating about insurance fraud.

[des8]

Re: Convictions

Hi bb,
I actually agree with you.
For what its worth my background was 20 years as a Lloyd's broker, which included drafting specialist proposal forms and one off policy wordings.
I then ran my own book of business.
As a broker I acted on behalf of my clients, and often had to argue hard when broking a claim because the insurers were either ignorant or just trying to avoid the claim. Even taking it to court if necessary.
On the other hand there are enough attempts to make false claims to make insurers cynical.

And this discussion arose from a simple request about a question on a proposal form to which my advice remains unchanged (post 13)

[charitynjw]

Re: Convictions

No it's not.
It was a doctrine first expounded in the 18th Century during a dispute over a claim which the insurers declined because the proposer with held material information. There was an attempt to make it apply to all contracts, but basically it only stuck with insurance because the insurer has to rely on the other party disclosing all information. The duty does apply the other way, and if the insurer knows of something which means there is no risk he must decline the proposal.An example of this is running in another thread about insurers declining to pay out following a cancelled flight. They claim the proposer knew the flight was likely to be cancelled....but by the same standards they knew that as well and so should not have charged to cover that particular risk!

Hi des8,

Introduced into English law via Carter v Boehm (1766) by Lord Mansfield, the principal was used in Marine Insurance law, & was codified via the Marine Insurance Act 1906.

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions

Hi bb,
I actually agree with you.
For what its worth my background was 20 years as a Lloyd's broker, which included drafting specialist proposal forms and one off policy wordings.
I then ran my own book of business.
As a broker I acted on behalf of my clients, and often had to argue hard when broking a claim because the insurers were either ignorant or just trying to avoid the claim. Even taking it to court if necessary.
On the other hand there are enough attempts to make false claims to make insurers cynical.

And this discussion arose from a simple request about a question on a proposal form to which my advice remains unchanged (post 13)

There is an exception where offences involving criminal dishonesty are involved, in which case the offender is barred from obtaining insurance for a period of time, dependent upon the offence and sentence imposed.

[des8]

Re: Convictions

There is an exception where offences involving criminal dishonesty are involved, in which case the offender is barred from obtaining insurance for a period of time, dependent upon the offence and sentence imposed.

As mentioned in post 8

[Eloise01]

Re: Convictions

The OP doesn't seem to have been interested in coming back to provide the actual wording, but no matter - words are important and the tools of my trade. Their meaning and interpretation, which is why I kept coming back to the point that we don't know what the words say.... in the absence of the words, but having done some research.....

Assuming that the OP has internet access because they posted here, and therefore, like almost everyone with such access they obtained their quotes online...

The questions relating to criminal convictions read something along the lines of "Do you have any criminal convictions?" Or "Do you have any criminal convictions for.....?" The word "ever" (as in "have you ever had any criminal convictions?") does not appear - but to the right of the question what does appear is the ubiquitous question mark in a circle or a box, upon which you are supposed to click if you do not understand the question or need an explanation of the question. If you do that in relation to these sets of questions what you get is an explanation of what is meant by a criminal conviction and an explanation that you do not have to declare any spent convictions!


So the OP's righteous indication about their rights being flouted was presumably based on having not read the information (always a good idea to read everything including the small print), and the suggestions that asking about all convictions is now standard practice or that insurance companies regularly attempt to flout the law would be moot - I have been unable to find a single instance of this question being asked in any form on an online proposal where there is not something associated with that question that explains this point in detail.

[des8]

Re: Convictions

Basically Yes, but here are examples of proposal forms (not on line) where the question is asked without reference to the Act.
This does not mean the Act does not apply.
http://www.towergateunderwriting.co....-Form-0611.pdf
http://www.homeinsuranceanswers.org/...sal_Form_.html
http://www.brucestevenson.co.uk/?wpfb_dl=6
http://www.zurich.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres...pformLoRes.pdf