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.
Here is a take on how useless the government track and trace might be, with all the usual suspects involved screwing it up with cheapo solutions, wonder if Derco are using Citrix as its connectiuon backbone, there is a nickname for Citrix that starts with a colloquial term for excrement so replace C with Sh
Best not use any email, they can then send stuff at 12:59:59 pm the day before a hearing and say you had it unless you have something in writing saying they must not use that email for service of any or all documents.