Hi,

First time newbie and have done a quick search and can't find anything similar so here goes.

My brother had car insurance with NorwichUnion (NU) for which he paid for in monthly installments. When the renewal came he found a cheaper quote elsewhere and changed to them.

Now on the renewal letter he got from NU it said if he didn't contact them the insurance would continue as it was by monthly installements at the new (higher) price. Now my brother didn't phone them as he thought that the (original) insurance was for 12 months and that NU would require permission/confirmation from him before issuing another motor policy and a new 12 month contract.

Apparently now NU have taken 2 monthly installements from his account (higher price) and when my brother phoned them they then requested a £60 cancellation fee which he has paid.

I appreciate that my brother has been a little naive over this matter but do insurance companies have a right to extend a motor insurance policy without his permission and just based on the renewal letter " if we don't hear from you we will continue with monthly debit at the new price".

Any advice would be appreciated as to whether it is worth fighting?

btw I previously had a motor policy with NU which I have changed to another company recently. I never informed NU of my wish to not renew the policy and they haven't taken money from my account. The only difference is that I pay a lump sum whether my brother pays in monthly installments.

thanks

OK, a couple of things.

Firstly he needs to find out how they came to £60. If it is administration fee then that seems steep, and he should start recovering it like the bank charges.

Also as he has dual insurance, and IF he has not made a claim, he should get the money back for the two premiums - he will need to show NUI the Certificate of Motor Insurance. Get him to phone them up and ask how to get a refund on the basis of dual insurance.

Good Luck

thanks Craig,

are you saying he should phone Norwich Union and ask for a refund because they gave him an additional motor insurance policy without his approval?

when you say show Norwich Union the Certificate of Motor Insurance do you mean his new one with Admiral?

cheers

OK it sounds like he realised the NU policy was in force and then phoned to request they cancel which is probably why they have treated it as a straight cancellation etc.

Phone them up say that you did not wish to renew their policy and that you arranged alternative cover and ask them to lapse thei policy from the renewal date and refund all monies paid on the renewal (incl canx fees) as he has dual insurance. NU will probably ask to see a copy of the new insurers certificate to confrim his story.

btw on this, and before anyone else starts it off, having dual insurance is NOT illegal. If some dunderhead at the insurance company tells you otherwise, ignore them. There are many instances where dual insurance exists (think of cover away from home, holiday insurance and credit card protection for purchases - there are three there). Obviously, trying to claim on all three for the same loss is not on, but that is not what you are doing.

the only reason I mention this is that everyone I worked with always believed it was illegal, which casued no end of hassle for customers whose policies overlapped.

Ok I have now drafted a letter and he ha sent it to NU with a copy of his other motor policy. I'll keep you updated if I hear anything back.

thanks

btw on this, and before anyone else starts it off, having dual insurance is NOT illegal. If some dunderhead at the insurance company tells you otherwise, ignore them. There are many instances where dual insurance exists (think of cover away from home, holiday insurance and credit card protection for purchases - there are three there). Obviously, trying to claim on all three for the same loss is not on, but that is not what you are doing.

 

the only reason I mention this is that everyone I worked with always believed it was illegal, which casued no end of hassle for customers whose policies overlapped.

As a matter of fact (and I work in the business) having a dual insurance on a motor policy IS illegal and can be classed as a form of fraud. Not too sure about credit cards etc.

For this case (and NU can do it) call them and explain the dual insurance, they can then check the Motor insurers database (this has details of every insured vehicle in the uk, and the police also use this to determine who is and isnt insured when they pull them over) which will tell them when you took out the policy with Admiral (so long as it wasnt a different vehicle) and what happens is that you would be entitled to a 50% refund from NU and 50% from Admiral as any claims in that period would have to be settled 50/50 between the 2 insurers.

hope this helps

Hi. I'm Darren Cornish, Norwich Union's Head of Customer Experience (bit of a fancy title - basically I and my team are here to try to improve service). Dyls - send me a copy of what you have forwarded - it should be getting looked at anyhow but happy to make sure. You can get me at : [email protected]. Pls apologise to your brother that he is having hassle with us.

OK,

The solution to this is actually quite simple.

NU renewed the policy on a rolling contract. In the documentation originally received it would say somewhere that unless instructed otherwise, the policy would be automatically renewed. Basic reason is that it inflates an insurer's renewal retention stats !!!

All your brother needs to do is write back to NU with a copy of the new Admiral cert stating he did not intend to renew and the policy with them should be voided from inception without charge and a FULL return of premium taken.

I know NU are trying to drive up the fleet rates but didn't think they were into nicking money from personal lines policyholders ( Sorry NU guys, couldn't resist the "business" dig LoL).

That said, Admiral should have noticed that there was duel insurance as your registration number should have been flagged up when entered onto the MID which would show a policy was in force with NU. Probably a simple admin error.

Turning to Gyzmo's point, whilst there are many occasions where more than one insurer may be involved in providing cover, it is technically illegal to have motor insurance with 2 insurers, certainly in personal lines. There are one or two Non-conventional large fleet risks where there is an agreed split liability however the lead is the only one permitted in law to issue the certificate of insurance. Any co-insurance deal is "behind the scenes" so to speak.

Beanie, NU & Admiral would not split any claim/refund 50/50, they must agree who the actual insurer would be liable. In this instance, the intended insurer was Admiral and the NU policy is void.

Finally, back to the thread, I'm sure one of the NU guys will confirm this course of action & point you inthe direction of one of the senior personal lines underwriters to forward correspondence to as I only know the commercial ones. They're not all bad really ! NU are definately one of the better insurers.

Hope that this has clarified all points.

OK,

 

 

Turning to Gyzmo's point, whilst there are many occasions where more than one insurer may be involved in providing cover, it is technically illegal to have motor insurance with 2 insurers, certainly in personal lines.

I was always taught that it is not illegal to have dual (motor)insurance unless there is an intention to commit fraud. Surely if it were illegal just to have dual insurance then there would be some case law to back this up. I do not recall this even being mentioned in the various Road Traffic Acts let alone state that it is an offence.

Don't think there is any case law but this was/is stated somewhere in an old CII book on basic elements of insurance.

To be sure though I'll double check Monday at work.

Don't think there is any case law but this was/is stated somewhere in an old CII book on basic elements of insurance.

 

To be sure though I'll double check Monday at work.

I think i will check through mine to see if i can find it some time as well.

Dont mean to be argumentative about it just find it strange that there are so many differing views amongst those in the industry.

It isn't, and I would like to see some legislation (so far no-one has been able to) that shows it is illegal to have more than one insurance policy.

the nature of insurance itself lends itself in some cases to having more than one policy on the same subject matter. Obviously in the vast majority of cases there is no reason to have multiple insurance (such as with domestic cars), and indeed having dual insurance may be an indication of potential fraud, and claiming on two indemnitiy policies is indeed fraud, but that is not the point.

The fact is however that it is not illegal. at the risk of seeming to go off-topic, let me explain why I raised this point.

When I worked in insurance, I had a customer who had inadvertantly taken out two policies (he was rather elderly and somewhat confused - basically he took out another policy three months into his renewal, forgetting about the old one). When he came to cancel the old policy, it came to light that there were two policies operating. Both insurers wanted to take full premiums for the whole year and rescing the contract, and I was the only person who claimed this to be wrong. After going through underwriters (glorified call centre staff) I ended up going right through to the chief underwriter (my manager was furious) who asked whether or not insurance staff receive any training (my manager was still furious but did not seem to care that she was wrong). He sent and email ordering the policy to continue so long as the other insurance, for as long as it ran, to be listed as an additional policy through whom contribution can be sought.

If anyone can provide an statute which specifically prohibits having more than one insurance policy (in general) I will gladly eat my hat (with some salt and pepper though).

Dont mean to be argumentative about it just find it strange that there are so many differing views amongst those in the industry.

I know there are, but it seems that it is down to poor training. some of the things I have heard should make an underwriter's feet curl up. I have challenged people on this before and the best answer I have received is "because it is".

Basically becasue it is a policy of indemnity, the insured cannot be allowed to benefit from a loss. A such, any payments from policies should be made on a pro-rata basis.

In fact, if you look in your CII folder, you will see a section on contribution - the right of insurers to call on others where cover is provided - i.e, DUAL INSURANCE! If it was illegal, then the professional body of the industry would not be training people in how to calculate contributions from several different insurers!

 

In fact, if you look in your CII folder, you will see a section on contribution - the right of insurers to call on others where cover is provided - i.e, DUAL INSURANCE! If it was illegal, then the professional body of the industry would not be training people in how to calculate contributions from several different insurers!

Was just reading this section as you were posting.

It does indeed confirm exactly what you and I were saying.

Actually Guys, this has got me thinking also. It's one of those things that I've "retained" since starting out in the business & never thought anything different.

I will check once and for all.

Agree all re contribution etc where there are multiple lines and/or excess layers etc however UK (RTA) conventional personal motor is 100%. Trouble is I do not think there has been an occasion where such an issue needed to be decided through legal process.

We are slightly off thread but ultimately should assist Dyls.

Here is an example Contribution clause as contained within an NU Powerpoint motor policy.

Other insurance

If at the time of any claim arising under

this policy there is any other insurance

policy covering the same loss, damage or

liability, we will only pay our share

of the claim. This condition does not apply

to personal accident benefits under Section

3, which will be paid as indicated under

that section. This provision will not place

any obligation upon us to accept any

liability under Section 2 which we would

otherwise be entitled to exclude under

Exception 1. to Section 2.

http://www.nuebroking.com/document-library/files/bc/bcotr1258052007privatecarpolicypowerpoint.pdf

Like I said, it is a somewhat seemingly off-topic area, but one that has cropped up and casued no end of trouble when it does. I was merely covering the bases.

Apologies to OP for taking this off topic, but I felt it worthwhile. I think the posts proved the point. I hope it need not be proven further.

Just found out tonight that someone from NU phoned my brother to say that he would get a full refund.

Top result and thanks to Darren.

Dyls, no problem. Have a good weekend.