Another excuse not to pay out....

[Angus]

A Minister of Religion has had her car insurance voided because of stickers:

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk ... story.html

When I first heard this I though it was because they obstructed her view.....

We'd better start declaring our IAM badges.....

[akirk]

can't imagine that a decent lawyer would have any trouble winning such a case against an insurance company... if needed

Alasdair

[TheInsanity1234]

Well, I am all for freedom of speech and having the right to share your opinions and that, but this does make me chuckle

Fervently Christian vicar broke a rule or two

[revian]

Though this 'christian vicar' (sic!) wouldn't put things on his car like that.. (Not a disagreement about what was said just the way of saying it) I couldn't believe that the insurance company counted this as a modification!

Yup hide your IAM badge... National Trust sticker... Car parking pass...

Totally bonkers... Idiocy or economy drive?

Ian

[Angus]

There was another "dodge" in the news recently

A driver blacked out at the wheel (for the first time) and hit another car head on. The driver's insurers (Co-op)refused to pay out because as he had never blacked out before he wasn't negligent and therefore the Co-op weren't liable.

[Andy]

can't imagine that a decent lawyer would have any trouble winning such a case against an insurance company...

Not when you've got God on your side!

[MGF]

There was another "dodge" in the news recently

A driver blacked out at the wheel (for the first time) and hit another car head on. The driver's insurers (Co-op)refused to pay out because as he had never blacked out before he wasn't negligent and therefore the Co-op weren't liable.

To the third party or the insured? No liability to the third party without fault. Shouldn't make any difference to the insured.

[Angus]

There was another "dodge" in the news recently

A driver blacked out at the wheel (for the first time) and hit another car head on. The driver's insurers (Co-op)refused to pay out because as he had never blacked out before he wasn't negligent and therefore the Co-op weren't liable.

To the third party or the insured? No liability to the third party without fault. Shouldn't make any difference to the insured.

To the third party, whose car was written off (her insurers paid, less the excess) and was unable to work for some months

[michael769]

To the third party, whose car was written off (her insurers paid, less the excess) and was unable to work for some months

Then the refusal was quite correct. Third party cover only ever pays out when the insured driver is negligent.

As for the first example - according to the article linked in the OP her policy was not voided. The insurers appear to have accepted that it had not been made adequately clear to the insured that stickers should have been declared, and the policy was continued.

[onlinegenie]

Calling this a modification is ridiculous. The only possible justification I can think of for voiding her policy is all the religious hatred about at the moment - her car might be a target for vandalism by extremist non-Christian groups (avoiding naming any such groups - I'm not a UKIP supporter!).

[trashbat]

It's not ridiculous.

In a particular light, it's going to an insurer and saying, 'hello, here I am, a quiet churchgoing individual with a plain and boring car', when actually what you should have said was, 'hello, here I am, in my obvious, signwritten car that says PRAISE BE TO THE LORDY LORD all over it'.

Something of a different risk profile, and it doesn't require any kind of extremist groups either. Unless, say, misbehaving teenagers count as one.

[Andy]

It's not ridiculous.

In a particular light, it's going to an insurer and saying, 'hello, here I am, a quiet churchgoing individual with a plain and boring car', when actually what you should have said was, 'hello, here I am, in my obvious, signwritten car that says PRAISE BE TO THE LORDY LORD all over it'.

Something of a different risk profile, and it doesn't require any kind of extremist groups either. Unless, say, misbehaving teenagers count as one.

Really.....? How do a few innocent (non-motoring related) words stuck on a car significantly change the risk profile of the driver? Bear in mind the claim doesn't relate to vandalism or driver behaviour, just the theft of what I guess was her CAT.

[trashbat]

The claim isn't necessarily relevant if they wouldn't have insured her in the first place. Also, the risk profile concerns more than her driving or indeed any active behaviour on her part.

[Gareth]

How do a few innocent (non-motoring related) words stuck on a car significantly change the risk profile of the driver?

The non-motoring words displayed in large format make the car stand out, so while the risk profile of the driver isn't altered the risk profile of the car is.

[Horse]

Really.....? How do a few innocent (non-motoring related) words stuck on a car significantly change the risk profile of the driver?

I don't know.

But I do know that I'm extra wary of cars displaying 'CND' stickers, or those little curved 'fish' emblems.