Caravan Club Non Insurance Policy

Posted on 13/11/2019 14:30 by Tinwheeler

Great post, WN, and a pleasure to read the words of someone who knows what he's talking about.

Posted on 13/11/2019 13:58 by Cornersteady

I meant those (4) posters out of the thousands that have bought the club's cover, I was replying to Surfer's post that said:

Every time the club has taken on something new they have failed miserably which is why we have concerns.

There are many examples of this and in some cases, but not all, after several months they have been able to rectify the issue where it is acceptable.

We do not want to be the guinea pigs! 

the we I took it as being the ones who use/buy a club product.

 

Posted on 13/11/2019 14:32 by

Wherenext

Can you elaborate on your concerns about overseas cover?

I only ask out of interest as I have already decided to change but having spent 4 months each year for the last 20 overseas assuming I had proper cover what was/is the problem?

Posted on 13/11/2019 14:35 by

I state the above as someone who worked all of my life as an Underwriter, Salesperson, Commercial Broker and Claims Handler of Public Liability insurance, amongst other insurances. 

I respect your knowledge WN. I presume that you have also dealt with unregulated policies that were permitted after 2005 as this changed the scene by allowing the sale to Members of unregulated mutual cover. So, with such cover what happens when a payout is believed to be undervalued either for the first or third party claimants? It is not just the lack of a payment offer. Many cases take to the ombudsman are in regards to undervaluation of claims

This section sets out to cover the Insured party for their Legal Liability for any injury, loss or damage to Third Party persons or their property. The CAMC cover states this. 

Strangely the CMC policy states that it May pay out for a third party claim that you might be found legally negent for. This does seem odd

Posted on 13/11/2019 14:09 by Wherenext

I do feel that there has been a lot of misinformation bandied about on this thread, particularly in regard to the Public Liability aspect of the cover.

This section sets out to cover the Insured party for their Legal Liability for any injury, loss or damage to Third Party persons or their property. The CAMC cover states this. If a court of law decides that you have been negligent then the CAMC will have to pay, regardless of their T&Cs otherwise they would be in breach of contract. They would also be the laughing stock of the Insurance Industry and clients would desert them in droves. You cannot escape your legal liability. This is why signs such as those found in Car Parks stating that the owner is not responsible for any damage etc. is rubbish. If they have been negligent in not fixing the condition of said car park and you trip over a loose paving slab then they cannot hide behind this disclaimer. They are negligent. In the caravan cover scenario if the club did for whatever reason decline a legitimate claim then they could be sued under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which is specifically designed to deal with contracts of liability.

I state the above as someone who worked all of my life as an Underwriter, Salesperson, Commercial Broker and Claims Handler of Public Liability insurance, amongst other insurances. 

It should be noted that I don't actually insure my own caravan with the club and haven't for a number of years. This is not because I am worried about whether they are ethical or not but simply because they could not provide me with the cover I was seeking and to my knowledge still can't. It relates to cover whilst abroad so quite a few people can ignore the reason.

I also think that the club in trying to be clever have actually got their sales pitch wrong when they included the word May into the equation when talking about settling claims. I feel they were looking for an edge over their competitors here by intimating that should your claim fall outside the normal scope they could still end up paying the claim, ex-gratia as it were. However they have left it open to other interpretations.

I really cannot believe that their intention is to avoid paying legitimate claims but understand members concerns. That is up to each one to decide whether or not to place their cover with them but if push came to shove I would not be put off insuring with them if I could resolve the foreign cover aspect and certainly wouldn't worry whatsoever about the Public Liability aspect as any declinature, in my view, would only come about in exactly the same way as other insurers would handle it.

 

Posted on 13/11/2019 12:36 by Cornersteady

It is (I've counted ) but one click away. DIY.

No more playing now - Use your running away line if you wish.

Posted on 13/11/2019 15:04 by

Yes I have seen their advertising 95% claim if that is to what you are referring.  But that is not industry data and is quite low.  Industry levels of pay out on Third Party liability claims and proven Third Party liability claims is 98.6% and 99.4% respectively before FOC intervention.  The few not paid are for such things as false whiplash claims. 

Tell me.  If the "cover" is an insurance why:

• is no insurance premium tax due to HMRC?
• has the word will been replaced with may?
• does it not qualify for regulation by the FOS?

Additionally, why does CC Ltd not offer an independent adjudication or dispute resolution service?