Family Legal Protection Insurance - Wot's it for?

[bobwat48]

To me the word "Protection" implies that I will have some defence if someone attacks me, but it seems not. I have such a Policy with NatWest as part of my Home Contents, and Buildings Insurance. I pay the extra premium for "Family Legal Protection".

 

To put it in a nutshell, I own a freehold property, but surrounding land is owned by a business. The business owner has recently taken a stance that I must pay for access and use of his drainage pumping station. I pay full Council Tax, and full rates for water supply and drainage, however, I will agree that some small amount is due under the legal principle of 'Benefit and Burdon'. However the amounts demanded are stupidly inflated. I have received Court Summons to pay the amount demanded, and entered my defence, saying this is excessive.

 

I have taken legal advice, the Solicitor agrees with my position... So, I phoned my insurers after checking my policy which clearly states on the front page that cover extends to:-"Any dispute arising out of my ownership or occupation of the Property". Seems clear cut, but no, the adviser on the phone at the insurance company, who said he was a Barrister so he should know, stated that in the small print on the second page of the policy, it states under "Exceptions", that defending any actions taken against me is NOT covered.

 

So what is the point, it does not "Protect" me at all, it only allows me to "Take" action against others. I think the Policy is very misleading and innapropriately named as it offers no protection whatsoever.

 

Any suggestions anyone, I am very angry at the moment, but at least I have established that due to my financial position, (Pension Credit), I will qualify for the max assistance from Legal Aid. Better than nothing, but nowhere near as effective as full legal protection from my insurance would have been.

[Conniff]

I took this from an insurance site:

 

Family legal protection cover

 

Ever been on holiday and found that you needed to challenge your travel agent when you got home because your hotel just wasn't up to scratch? Or have you ever needed any expert legal advice?

For just a small additional premium, family legal protection cover provides you, and members of your household, with legal help and assistance with situations such as resolving disputes over purchased goods and services; employment contracts; disputes with neighbours plus much more.

In fact, it's almost like having a lawyer in your back pocket, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I'm sorry this is not my field and I have no experience of this.

 

However, what I can do is to say how I would approach it if I was in your position.

 

From a specimen policy on Nat West's web site I found this:

 

3 Property Protection

a) Any claim if the Date of Incident is less than 90 days after cover started.

b) Defending Your legal rights in claims against You.

c) Any building or land other than Your Home.

 

So b) seems to be the bit they are relying on.

 

My argument would be as follows:

 

1) I am not "defending" anything other than a claim against me. A claim against me is not one of my legal rights.

 

2) The right to make a claim against me is the legal right of another person.

 

3) The claim is not about my legal rights. It is about the alleged legal right of another person to charge me for purported services.

 

4) The only legal right I have in this matter is to defend myself in the claim. That right is not being denied to me, so there is no need to defend it.

 

5) It is not my legal rights that are being defended it is me.

 

6) The defence of my legal rights is the substance of this exception not the defence of me.

 

7) If NatWest's stance was to hold true the clause should really read "Defending You in claims against You". But it does not. It qualifies the position to defending solely my legal rights. As stated my legal rights are the right to defend myself and these are not denied. The substance of the claim being made against me are about the third parties alleged legal rights not mine. Therefore the exception does not apply.

 

8 ) At best the exception is ambiguous and as such has to be construed against Nat West under the contra proferentum rule of interpretation.

 

I have no idea of the likelihood of success of this argument but IMHO you have nothing to lose here and everything to gain. I would take it all the way as your claim does seem entirely the sort of thing I would expect to be covered.

 

Don't you just hate wordsmiths!

[bobwat48]

Thank you "Bernie". This is very helpful, and as you say, I have nothing to lose. My Solicitor did advise me that the Insurance Company would probably try to 'weasle out' in some manner, and I was going to question their ruling. Thanks to you I now have a deal of useful ammunition. We'll give it a try. Wish me luck!! As you say, its all in the interpretation of the wording, and yes, I do hate wordsmiths.

 

The guy I spoke to said he was a Barrister, implying that he could not be wrong, but, we have to realise they are just people with their own slant on what the wording means, and in Court, where each side has the advice of a Barrister, one of them is inevitably wrong. That's a 50% fail rate in my eyes, LOL!!!

Edited June 29, 2008 by bobwat48
Addidtions