Assuming I can find a new insurer that covers the peril, it seems they can deny a claim for a new actionable event if they think it is linked to something before the policy started even if there was no actionable claim under the old policy. Can the old policy accept a claim that happens after the policy is finished where the cause of the claim might be due to the same type of events that had started during the policy? I don't think so, so if I don't have a claim, what help will I get by informing the old insurer? If the problem starts again and results in a claim, on investigation they will find there were earlier issues. If the old policy had been renewed, if a new claim happend after renewal, it would be covered because the same cover was in place during the earlier problem. What if I buy a new policy with the previous insurer? There is a few weeks gap but nothing has caused a claim in those few weeks. There is a similar policy also in place during the gap. The old insurer wording says they will cover events from the start of the policy (without a lead in wait) only if there was unbroken similar cover in place with another insurer beforehand. So, by the broker renewing without the peril covered has lost continutiy. What can the broker do about it? I think they are at fault. The renewal documents did not warn me there were new exclusions.

To Bank Fodder, I am not friends with the broker. They told me they no longer work with the old insurance companies. The notice of renewal only contained a summary of cover not the full policy documents. Only after my asking for the full policy have I discovered the exclusions, but the switch has already happened. Uncle BG, the old policy says I should notify them as soon as possible if something happens but does not set a date. I did not report anything at the time because there was no claim or action required. It is really hard to know when or what to report. If you report trivial things all the time, it will just build up a claims history when there has been no loss but you will be covered if a related thing causes a loss later. That is, unless you switch to a new insurer who will exclude anything that is related to something earlier. The thing I was bothered about was a few months back but stopped before anything bad happened. However, it might start again so I want to be covered in case a claim results. If I can find a new policy without a lead in period and the problem starts again, will I be covered? If they say there was a previous problem even though it had stopped months before the new policy, they might not cover me so would the old policy cover it? I don't think it will. The renewal letter did not include the policy wording, only a key facts statement and did not list the exclusions, so even if I had dealt with it before the renewal I only found out about the exclusion after the old policy ended and the new one started. I will call the broker an try to insist they replace the policy with one equivalent to the old one but it sounded like they did not have any alternatives. I don't know how brokers work but I thought they were supposed to be able to pick from many insurance companies? Thanks for the informative reply.

My insurance broker who I had home cover with legal expenses add on has renewed me with a new insurer. I have a potential legal problem which began during the old policy and was covered by the old policy. However, nothing happened resulting in a strong cause of action to make a claim under the old policy. The new policy has an exclusion for the peril that was covered by the old policy. If the dispute leads to a claim now, the new insurance will not cover it. If I try to get a new policy covering the type of problem I might have, it will exclude things that began before the policy and will not cover new claims for at least 3 months from the start of the policy. Basically, i've been robbed of my cover. What can I do to get cover in case the problem turns into a claim? What are my rights?