NUD cancelled policy cos of paying by cheque!!

[Son of Shoestring]

Originally Posted by Darkangelsdelite

"I disagree with lemon Twist (and you) here regarding the claims situation. Quite strongly, in fact. Few people who take out insurance policies are lawyers or are able to understand the designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses that pepper every insurance document. Nor do insurance brokers, or insurance companies, make an effort to clearly explain or underscore the many exceptions under which a claim will either be disputed or not paid out. On the other hand the industry rapidly pockets every premium payment it can lay its hands on."

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand an insurance policy, all you need is a bit of common sense and some time to read it through. As i clearly stated in my post, anything you don't understand is a simple phone call or letter away (or in the case of brokers a discussion with a person face to face) and all will be clarified.

That you may find such language simple merely reflects the fact that you work in that industry and are familiar with the way it operates.

In regard to the phone call you mention, why should it fall to the customer to clarify exceptions...especially as so many ordinary mortals don't understand the intent of the wording used.

Surely, the responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the insurance industry (if misselling is to be avoided) to amplify, in simple understandable terms, the innumerable situations under which a claim will be declined at the time they accept the premium -- rather than the industry wide practise of knowingly accepting premiums in the clear actuarially tested knowledge that a given (and not always small) percentage of accepted policies will not be paid out when a claim is initiated -- the latter based on highly "swervy" and technical grounds?

Regarding the phone call of which you speak, I believe I am right in stating that in claims situations that customer's call is vectored through a computer using Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) software, and that the claims agent listening to the call is looking at the analysis of each answer to each question he/she asks, in order to assess whether the customer is telling porkies - and then using this dodgy means of assessment to decline to pay out on a claim?

CVSA is far less reliable than the polygraph that it attempts to replicate using the minute and inaudible signals allegedly given out by the human voice when presented with stressful situations. Independent tests show that it has no better chance of being accurate than predicting the toss of a coin.

I would also point out that our kind American cousins in the Pentagon use CVSA as an interrogation tool at their torture base in Guatanamo Bay. Which goes some way to showing the mindset that of the insurance industry to use the same apllication on their customers as a means of significantly reducing payouts.

Also just to point out that most major insurers, as well as a whole host of other companies, have now got the Crystal Mark from the 'Plain English Campaign' which means that their documents are clear and easy to understand and don't contain "designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses" that you seem to think they do.

Plain English Campaign | Insurance, assurance and pension firms with Crystal Marks

As a retired professional writer (and former international banker) I think I will continue to trust my own experience of what constitutes clear and easy to understand language. But thank you all the same.

I'm gona leave it there as this is going waaaaay off topic and escalating into an argument. IF someone wants to start a new thread about differences of opinion on the finance industry then we cant post there.

Yes, I'm sure you do want to leave it here. Very quickly. I find it intersting that what you typify as an argument, I simply regard as a debate. Which is, after all, one of the purposes of internet forums. Moreover, there are -- as I keep telling you -- hundreds upons hundreds of threads already in existence on the banking forum about the finance industry. No need to start a new one when this one is going so well, eh.

[Son of Shoestring]

Originally Posted by Trojan1401

SoS

Strange but there could be a collective of insurance staff here as funnily enough, it is the insurance forum.

Yes, I see. Irony is lost on you.

Insurance cover is there primarily to indemnify someone n the event of a loss. It is a contract between two parties where the proposer must disclose all material facts pertaining to such proposal of insurance. The onus is in the proposer to declare anything which may influence an underwriter's decision whether to accept a risk or modify terms applying to the policy.
A claim is normally declined due to non-disclosure i.e. not declaring driving convictions/previous accidents, construction of buildings, criminal convictions etc depending upon insurance type. You would be suprised what people do and don't say but generally trip themselves up when submitting a claim.

I would not be in the least be surprised. Individuals, like industries, are inherently crooked when it comes to money. The difference is the uneven playing field environment between the individual and industry. Most individuals are just not clever enough to understand that they are thoroughly beaten even before they pay the first premium.

The industry thrives on the inherent dishonesty of those seeking insurance. I doubt that you could see it, but this alone makes the industry itself ethically and factually dishonest.

Insurance fraud is big business

Both inside and outside the industry, no.

[BADGER 69]

This is going way off the subject.

As someone who is studying law I took sb2675's original post and cazzaswfc's responce to my lecture yesterday for my tutor , a barrister, to have a look at as I felt that as NUD had accepted payment by cheque on several occasions I felt that the original contract would still be valid. It was his opinion that as there was consideration (the cheque) and intention (as original ) then NUD would be hard pressed to avoid paying up if sb2675 had had an accident. There may have been a breach of the conditions but it would be incumbent upon NUD to inform of this before cancelling. Also it would only be right to allow for future payments to be made by DD.

[Son of Shoestring]

What your lecturer said entirely validates the point I was making. The insurance industry tries on all sorts of tricks all the time in order to minimise payout to buttress their performance and balance sheet. The customer is the one left out of pocket needing to take action to either appea to them, or the regulator, to show decent sense, to lump it, or engage a legal representative to take up proceedings on their behalf. The latter costs money as well as time, whereas the other actions take time and effort -- commodities that are stretched and in ever shorter supply these days.

[LemonTwist]

Regarding the phone call of which you speak, I believe I am right in stating that in claims situations that customer's call is vectored through a computer using Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) software, and that the claims agent listening to the call is looking at the analysis of each answer to each question he/she asks, in order to assess whether the customer is telling porkies - and then using this dodgy means of assessment to decline to pay out on a claim?

CVSA is far less reliable than the polygraph that it attempts to replicate using the minute and inaudible signals allegedly given out by the human voice when presented with stressful situations. Independent tests show that it has no better chance of being accurate than predicting the toss of a coin.

There was an article about this in The Observer today. Not many insurers in the UK actually use it, but of those that do, they all say that they don't rely soley on the results of the voice risk analysis program when deciding whether to reject a claim. They only use it to determine whether they need to question the claimant further.

You also keep saying that the insurance-related opinions of insurance workers on this forum are biased. The same could be said of you, as you have had a claim rejected and you are angry about it.

The reason I'm on this forum is because I do care about consumer rights, and I try to give people advice when I'm able to do so. I am also against the mis-selling of policies and any other bad practices that go on in our industry. I won't defend the industry for bad things, but if you've heard any lies about it, I'm going to explain you the truth.

[Son of Shoestring]

Originally Posted by LemonTwist

There was an article about this in The Observer today. Not many insurers in the UK actually use it, but of those that do, they all say that they don't rely soley on the results of the voice risk analysis program when deciding whether to reject a claim. They only use it to determine whether they need to question the claimant further.

Yes, of course CVSA is used in conjunction with other technology and techniques. The same might very well be said for the US torturers at Gitmo who use CVSA as part of their overall interrogation armoury.

The important point to make here is that no one can be subjected to a lie detector test (polygraph) without their consent. Voice Stress Analysis claims to do the same thing and yet the Insurance industry use it without gaining specific consent from (or even informing) their customer. This arguably contravenes people's human rights.

You also keep saying that the insurance-related opinions of insurance workers on this forum are biased. The same could be said of you, as you have had a claim rejected and you are angry about it.

This is, of course, an assumption on your part and thus demonstrates the lack of accuracy that you appear to adhere to. In the case of the other thread I posted in, the claim in question, is not mine but someone who I am helping.

The reason I'm on this forum is because I do care about consumer rights, and I try to give people advice when I'm able to do so. I am also against the mis-selling of policies and any other bad practices that go on in our industry. I won't defend the industry for bad things, but if you've heard any lies about it, I'm going to explain you the truth.

The reason I am on the forum amounts to the same rationale as yours -- although somewhat broader in scope, because I post on other subjects besides insurance. Bad practises, of which there are a huge amount, need to be pointed out and, indeed, stamped out -- but that won't happpen in reality (there is no effective regulation except on those occasions when their is a large public outcry and the need for a PR campaign arises where heads must fall as a result [usually junior heads]).

The "truth" is not quite so straightforward and prosaic as you believe it to be. In fact, it has many deeper levels than you are aware of. Let's say that such "understandings" that occur behind closed doors, are beyond your "pay grade".

Shoestring

[Son of Shoestring]

I’ve now had the time to read the Observer article on CVSA in more detail. I found it to be mildly biased to the extent that it subtly emphasises the effectiveness of CVSA used in the “claimant Dave” example used at the beginning of the article. The effectiveness of this technology is a very long way from the infallibility proponents claim.

If Observer journo’s haunt these forums scavenging for material to fill their work quota, they could at least do a decent job of objective investigation other than making a couple of phone calls to the friendly bods at the IFB.

The article focuses on the technology used by a firm named Digilog that was developed by the Israeli security forces. While that may be correct, it should be pointed out that the technology was pioneered by Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Inc., a private US security company that was founded by Allan J Bell Jr., a former Lt. Colonel in the US Army’s Counterinteligence Division (CID) and former cold warrior with the CID stationed in Berlin back in the days when that German city was “spook central” of the cold war. Colonel Bell was also later involved in the subsequent investigation (some argue the “cover-up”) assassination of US President John F Kennedy.

Today, arguments flow back and forth concerning the exact nature of the technology with opponents calling it an unreliable “lie detector”, while supporters and developers claim it is a “truth verification” package.

These ridiculous “hair splitting” arguments apart, the technology is deployed on individuals without their express consent or knowledge, a fact that must make it a candidate for contravening human rights.

It is said of the technology that there are “no known countermeasures to it” although the simple expedient of routing telephone calls through a home computer using an electronic voice modulating software package might be a cheap and effective countermeasure.

The TUC, which vehemently oppose the use of CVSA by the Department of Work and Pensions on welfare claimants, consider the technology to be particularly open to countermeasures and list several techniques in their article on their website (Trades Union Congress - TUC - Trades Union Congress - Error.

[mfpa]

The FSA states that each and every insurance sale must be clear, fair, and not misleading.

I have yet to do business with an insurer or broker who uses language that is clear and not misleading.

[mfpa]

Also, I have a friend who used to be insured with a company that specialises in breakdown services. He found he could not find a current insurance certificate when he had to produce one, so he phoned the insurer. They informed him they had not renewed his insurance policy when it expired and assured him the payments they had since direct debited from his bank account would be returned. He got no fine but still got points on his licence because it is apparently the driver's responsibility every moment that he drives to ensure he is still covered.

[LemonTwist]

Originally Posted by mfpa

Also, I have a friend who used to be insured with a company that specialises in breakdown services. He found he could not find a current insurance certificate when he had to produce one, so he phoned the insurer. They informed him they had not renewed his insurance policy when it expired and assured him the payments they had since direct debited from his bank account would be returned. He got no fine but still got points on his licence because it is apparently the driver's responsibility every moment that he drives to ensure he is still covered.

It is true that it is the driver's repsonsibility to ensure they are covered. However, it sounds like really bad service from the insurer (whichever one it was) that they forgot to renew the policy. Was your friend offered any kind of compensation, other than the premium being refunded?
I think that if your friend had had an accident at the time, the insurer woud've been required to pay out the claim anyway, since he had paid the premium so contract law would have required it.

[BADGER 69]

I think that you're right LemonTwist. Furthure more I think that as they had taken the money a contract did exist. The friend had fulfilled their part. Consideration ( payment) had been given and intention was there. It was just a failure of the insurance company to issue the certificate. The lack of a certificate does not mean that there is no contract. They in effect were trying to void the contract but they had accepted the consideration.

I think it was wrong for him to be found guilty and be awared penalty points. He had insurance. I think that if it had ended up in court about whether he did or did not have insurance it would have be held that infact he did have insurance.

[mfpa]

No compensation, just the refund.

The magistrate was sympathetic: imposed no fine and the minimum number of points he could for the offence. IIRC the issue wasn't whether or not he was insured, just failure to produce a valid insurance certificate when required to do so.