Re: Insurance Small Print - Claim Refused Please Advise?
- From: Mike <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 23:05:53 +0100
On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:31:11 +0100, "AXS" <a_w_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I have never heard anything so ridiculous as to have taken out a policy to
find such a hidden clause,
The reason for the clause is easily understandable and reasonable:
it's to prevent the unscrupulous from buying a policy to cover an
animal that's already sick, intending to make a claim.
(I'm not saying that you did this but the insurance company has to
protect itself from the dishonest.)
we phoned and asked them if the dog was covered
before it went to the vet and we were told cover was immediate.
If you had a recording of that conversation, you'd have a much
stronger case. It may be worth asking the insurance company if they
record calls made to them. If they do, they may well be able to
confirm your account and meet the claim on the basis that their
representative misled you.
If I end up trying to take this to the Small Claims Court do I have any
chance of winning based on the fact the terms bound me to browse the booklet
rather than read it and they omitted this important information from what
they call the important points.
The suggestion to "browse" the terms (which I think is a silly term to
use) didn't prevent you from reading them thoroughly, either before or
just after buying the policy. Since you chose not to read them
carefully and assuming you have no recording of the telephone calls,
my opinion (but I'm not a lawyer) is that you stand no chance at all
of winning an action.
Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Cheesy Wotsits
- Next by Date: Re: Cheesy Wotsits
- Previous by thread: Re: Insurance Small Print - Claim Refused Please Advise?
- Next by thread: Re: Insurance Small Print - Claim Refused Please Advise?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
