Cowboys and insurance

[felixthelogchopper]

Don't insurance policies have a term that all the information you supply must be correct or the policy is invalid? If you don't make a claim, the insurer keeps the premium and doesn't have to pay out. If you do make a claim but have supplied false information, the insurer can wriggle out that way. Win, win.

[onetruth]

1 hour ago, skyhuck said:

So why are we not asked to show our licence when taking out motor insurance?

Probably for much the same reason - it's a minor hassle to do so and all the insurer wants is to secure your business.  I note that I do have to provide proof of no claims entitlement each time - funny that.

Also, drive without a licence and the police might get involved.  Not likely for operating a chainsaw without the right ticket.

[john p]

Probably for much the same reason - it's a minor hassle to do so and all the insurer wants is to secure your business.  I note that I do have to provide proof of no claims entitlement each time - funny that.
Also, drive without a licence and the police might get involved.  Not likely for operating a chainsaw without the right ticket.

Yet........

[nepia]

41 minutes ago, onetruth said:

I note that I do have to provide proof of no claims entitlement each time - funny that.

 

I think the insurance companies have their own shared database to check that:  I haven't provided it for as long as I can remember. When changing insurers I've been asked how many years' No Claims and presumably that's checked before the new insurer sends out a proposal.

[skyhuck]

1 hour ago, onetruth said:

Probably for much the same reason - it's a minor hassle to do so and all the insurer wants is to secure your business.  I note that I do have to provide proof of no claims entitlement each time - funny that.

Also, drive without a licence and the police might get involved.  Not likely for operating a chainsaw without the right ticket.

Yes, the police would be involved, because you would be breaking the law.

 

 NPTC tickets are not a legal requirement. Proof of competence is, but is it really an insurance broker or company’s job to decide which proof is sufficient? 

[TIMON]

Seems like a lot of hand-wringing by this insurance broker to me.  Why not ask for proof of qualifications or training?  
Never used them, so I don't know what questions they do actually ask when selling a policy.  "Are you suitably qualified and trained?" would just be them covering their backs, not making any effort actually find out.  

Usually all this stuff (qualifications etc.) will be in the small print of a policy.
Insurance is a competitive industry, they aren’t going to put obstacles in their own way of getting your money.
In the event of big claim, when something goes wrong, you can bet that the insurance companies loss adjuster will be checking all of these things out.
In the event of something going wrong where damage to property and personal injury are involved, anyone who has taken out an insurance policy and not held up their end by way of proper training, RAMS, LOLER etc..etc.. could find that they have been living in a fools paradise thinking they are insured.
Same as a householder not doing his due diligence in checking who he is contracting to do the work.
Buyer beware.

[Luckyeleven]

Un-insured cowboys and Highwaymen brokers......surely some parallels to be drawn there....

[devon TWiG]

I have often thought it is strange that if some one crashes a car whilst drunk the insurers will pay for the damage they have done ....

[onetruth]

1 hour ago, devon TWiG said:

I have often thought it is strange that if some one crashes a car whilst drunk the insurers will pay for the damage they have done ....

Only to third parties, though.  The drunk driver wont get anything from them.

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, Luckyeleven said:

Un-insured cowboys and Highwaymen brokers......surely some parallels to be drawn there....

There's whisky in the jar 'O