Here is a selection of recent cases which have been concluded by My Insurer Won’t Pay panel Solicitors. We are leading the way with considerable success!
The Claimant was diagnosed with Lupus. She had Level Term Assurance with Critical Illness and Life Cover. The policy was valued at £150,000.00. The Insurer rejected the claim because the Claimant failed disclose an incident that was in her medical records. It was cited that if this had been disclosed, the policy may not have been offered to her.
The Claimant was signed off work in 2012 and her health had deteriorated. The doctor was willing to say that the incident that occurred in 2002 (undisclosed incident) and the problems the Claimant had since developed (Lupus) were unrelated. The Claimant was led to believe the Insurer had investigated her past health when she purchased the policy of insurance and this was why she had paid such a high premium for a long period of time. The Claimant had answered the declaration questions as honestly as she could. A claim was made against her Insurer however the Insurance Company offered only to refund her premiums to the amount of £400 and her claim was rejected.
The Claimant instructed My Insurer Won’t Pay. A formal complaint was submitted to the Insurance Company. They argued that the Claimant failed to disclose what could have been early signs of the future illness (Lupus), however the questions asked by the Insurer may not have been clear. The type of claim also came under question. The claim was exasperated because the claimant suffered from a heart attack during the claim.
Communications ensued and the Claimant was awarded the sum of £150,480.61.
The Claimant purchased GAP insurance when signing for his new car lease. The car was worth £11,693.00. He believed this insurance would mean that if anything happened to the car while the lease was ongoing he would receive the remaining balance owed as well as what the car was worth when purchased. He noticed a discrepancy on the paperwork regarding the Return to Invoice section, which he queried with the car garage and they changed and signed this for him.
The Claimant was involved in a car accident and his car was written off, with him still owing around £4,400.00 on the lease agreement. When he contacted his Car Insurance Company they told him he had been wrongly informed about the insurance he had purchased so they offered £5,720.00 for the remaining balance of the lease leaving the claimant with just £1000.80. The Claimant had continued to pay monthly instalments until the issue was resolved.
The Claimant instructed My Insurer Won’t Pay to deal with the claim on his behalf to recover the remaining balance from the GAP insurance company. Following Communications between My Insurer Won’t Pay and the Defendants an offer was made for £5570.00, which was accepted by the Claimant.
The Claimant contacted an insurance company to obtain immediate cover for his vehicle so that he could drive to work the next day. He was asked the appropriate questions and was told he was insured and would receive the cover via email immediately. This did not happen therefore the Claimant contacted the insurer again the following day, to ask if he was insured, he was advised confirmation would follow shortly. The Claimant was involved in a Road Traffic Accident the following day, the police were called and the car was taken away.
A few days later the Claimant received the policy documentation and subsequently a rejection letter from the insurance company detailing the reasons that they would be rejecting his insurance claim for the accident. This was due to him not disclosing his second occupation as a chef. The Claimant was also instructed to pay costs for storage and retrieval of his vehicle. It would appear however that the Claimant was not asked about a second job and on the policy documentation there was no mention of the same.
The Claimant instructed My Insurer Won’t Pay. Following communications between My Insurer Won’t Pay and the insurance company, the Claimant received a cheque for damages in the amount £11,726.00 representing the total loss value of his vehicle which had been written off the road following the accident.
The Claimant was a motor vehicle owner and his car was hit late at night whilst parked, by a driver who was both uninsured and without a licence. The claim was valued at £90,000.00. The Insurer authorised for the car to be taken away and fixed, and the Claimant would receive a hire car for the duration of the repairs. This however did not occur, the driver was left without a vehicle and the claim was rejected on the basis that when the car was investigated the damage caused was said to have been caused when the vehicle was moving and not stationary as the Claimant stated.
The Claimant did however have video footage of the car being taken away, where it would appear the further damage had occurred. After some communications with the Insurance Company and My Insurer Won’t Pay, it was stated that although they were not disputing that the car was hit whilst parked and unattended, with a police report supporting this, the majority of the damage must have been caused when the vehicle was in motion. The Insurance Company then referred to the ‘fraud’ section of the policy and threatened to void the Claimant’s policy as they believed he had been fraudulent when making the claim.
Correspondence continued between My Insurer Won’t Pay and the Insurance Company. Investigations commenced to dispute the findings and decision of the Insurance Company. Following further complaint, the claim was increased to loss of use of the vehicle, the Claimant had been left without a vehicle for a significant period of time. The Claimant was eventually provided with a hire vehicle.
Following further communication, court proceedings and a joint settlement meeting the matter was successfully concluded in the sum of £70,250.00.
The Claimant obtained motor insurance and informed her insurance company that her vehicle would not be used for commuting to and from work. The Claimant was involved in a fault road traffic accident in December at 11pm. Unfortunately, the Claimant caused damage to her own vehicle in the sum of £4,273.00 and attempted to make a claim on her insurance policy. The insurance company rejected the claim on the grounds that the vehicle was being used for work purposes in her occupation as a mobile hairdresser and the policy did not allow for the same.
The Claimant confirmed again that the vehicle was not being used for work purposes however the claim remained rejected. To compound matters, the insurance company sought to recover repair costs that they had paid out to the non-fault vehicle involved in the accident in the sum of £3,125.00. The Claimant was being threatened with court action by her own insurance company.
The Claimant instructed My Insurer Won’t Pay. A detailed letter of claim was submitted to the insurance company to 1) recover the repair charges to the Claimant’s vehicle 2) reinstate the policy of insurance 3) ensure the insurance company paid the repair costs of the non-fault vehicle rather than the Claimant.
After several rounds of correspondence, My Insurer Won’t Pay received a response from the insurance company advising that they would meet the Claimant’s claim in full, the policy of insurance would be reinstated and the insurance company confirmed that they would no longer pursue the Claimant for non-fault repair costs.
The Claimant was a pet owner and sent her cat to a cattery for a few days whilst she went away on holiday. When the cat was dropped off at the cattery she was in good health. The Claimant returned several days later to find the cat in poor health, she was struggling to walk and meowing faintly. The Claimant took the cat to the vets who said she had a fractured vertebrae and reports showed she had been bitten by a dog or a fox. The Claimant contacted the cattery who immediately denied liability.
The cat underwent surgery totalling £1,500.00. The Claimant paid this amount herself.
The Claimant contacted her insurers, Pet Plan, for reimbursement of the surgery fees however they rejected the claim as the Claimant was unable to prove exactly how the injuries to her cat had occurred. The Claimant contacted My Insurer Won’t Pay to fight the rejected insurance claim.
A detailed letter of claim was sent to Pet Plan and within a matter of weeks, My Insurer Won’t Pay received an offer to settle the claim in full in the sum of £1,500.00 which was accepted by the Claimant.
The Claimant was the owner of a garden centre and unfortunately the building was damaged via a serious fire. The Claimant held a Combined Commercial Insurance Policy and was insured for buildings, trade contents, business interruption as well as liability cover. The Claimant made several attempts to make a claim for damages and loss to the business however the claim was rejected.
The claim was rejected on the grounds of the Claimant failing to ensure that fixed electrical installations were tested by an NICEIC or ECA registered contractor at least once in every 3 year period and failing to provide an IEE test certificate showing no deviations.
The Claimant instructed a My Insurer Won’t Pay Panel Solicitor to act on their behalf and following series of technical/legal arguments the policy of insurance was reinstated and indemnity was granted.
The Claimant recovered a total £300,000.00 in damages in addition the insurance company had to pay legal cost fees of £125,000.00.
The Claimant was the owner of a motor vehicle which was stolen outside his home address. The Claimant held a valid policy of motor insurance and sought to make a claim on the policy for vehicle which was valued at £11,000.00.
The claim was rejected by the insurance company on the grounds they were not satisfied that the vehicle had been stolen in the manner reported to them. The insurance company instructed a forensic engineer to examine the key provided by the Claimant and stated the key provided did not relate to the stolen vehicle. The insurance company remained suspicious and also noted the policy of insurance was only incepted 4 days prior to the car being stolen.
The Claimant instructed a My Insurer Won’t Pay Panel Solicitor to act on their behalf and it was discovered the insurance company’s investigator had mixed up the keys when dealing with another reported claim. Court Proceedings were issued on behalf of the Claimant who prepared a signed witness statement confirming the version of events were true.
The insurance company eventually agreed to indemnify the claim and the Claimant received £11,000.00 for the value of his vehicle, £8,400.00 for loss of use of his vehicle and interest in the sum of £2,586.66. In addition the insurance company had to pay legal cost fees of £5,240.72.
The Claimant was the owner of a commercial property and held commercial insurance which included legal expenses cover up to the value of £50,000.00. A neighbouring business of the Claimant undertook building work to their property and unfortunately caused damage to the Claimant’s property. The Claimant sought to bring court proceedings against the neighbouring business and prior to doing so made a claim for legal expenses assistance under the policy of commercial insurance.
The insurance company correctly referred the Claimant to their in-house legal team who were of the opinion that the claim enjoyed high prospects of success however refused to indemnify the legal claim against the neighbouring business on the basis of Clause 5 under ‘General Exclusions’ of the policy which excluded indemnity for ‘legal proceedings where a reasonable estimate of your total legal expenses is greater than the amount in dispute’.
The legal expenses insurance claim was rejected.
The Claimant instructed a My Insurer Won’t Pay Panel Solicitor to act on their behalf and seek compensation. The Claimant’s position was the insurance company could not rely on the exclusion clause due to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCC). UTCC 5(1) stated ‘a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.’ The exclusion clause was unfair and should immediately cease to form part of the policy.
Following the issue of court proceedings the insurance company failed to defend the claim and the Claimant was awarded £20,000.00 in compensation. In addition the insurance company agreed to pay £25,000.00 in legal costs.
The Claimant was driving his vehicle on the M6 when he unfortunately collided with the vehicle in front. The Claimant attempted to make a claim against his insurance company to recover the cost of repairs to his own vehicle. The insurance company instructed an engineer to assess the Claimant’s vehicle and found the Claimant had 3 tyres below the legal limit for tyre tread depth of 1.6 millimetres. The insurance claim was rejected on the basis the car was not roadworthy at the time of collision.
The Claimant instructed a My Insurer Won’t Pay Panel Solicitor to act on their behalf. An engineer was instructed on behalf of the Claimant who found that even if 3 tyres had been above the legal limit for tyre tread the collision would still have occurred in any event. On this basis the insurance company reinstated the policy and indemnity was granted.
The Claimant recovered a total £12,500.00 in damages. In addition the insurance company had to pay legal cost fees of £6,000.00.
The Claimant owned a Public House and Restaurant and unfortunately the building was severely damaged via a fire. The Claimant held a Commercial Insurance policy and was insured for damage, repairs, stock, fixtures and business interruption. The Claimant attempted to make a claim for damages and loss to the business however the claim was repudiated on the grounds of failing to disclose certain material information at the inception of the policy that would have affected the acceptance of insurance policy.
The contract of insurance was null and void on the basis the Claimant had failed to disclose a County Court Judgment (CCJs) against his partner on the Statement of Fact contained within the application for insurance. The insurer stated the underwriters would have declined the policy at the outset as all CCJs have a bearing on the underwriters perception of risk.
The Claimant instructed a My Insurer Won’t Pay Panel Solicitor to act on their behalf and the policy was eventually reinstated and indemnity granted.
The Claimant recovered a total £54,000.00 in damages. In addition the insurance company had to pay legal cost fees of £50,000.00.
The Claimant’s house was flooded by a neighbouring property development. The Claimant was insured for building and contents with their insurance company who sought assistance and compensation under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The insurance company refused to deal with the claim for substantial damages to the property and concentrated their efforts against the property developers and failed to provide the Claimant with any assistance. The insurance company failed to meet their obligations under the policy.
The Claimant instructed a My Insurer Won’t Pay Panel Solicitor to deal with the above claim on the basis the insurance company has mishandled and mismanaged the claim. A full review of the claim was undertaken and in addition to the property damage it was discovered the Claimant had developed severe chest infections due to living in damp conditions. An insurer must handle claims promptly and fairly, on this occasion the insurance company had failed in their duty to the policyholder.
The Claimant recovered a total £450,000.00 in damages. In addition the insurance company had to pay legal cost fees of £80,000.00.
We act for consumers and businesses who have had a genuine insurance claim rejected within the last 6 years or the offer made on their insurance claim is too low.
Did the insurance company make the wrong decision?
Is your claim worth over £2,000?
Is your claim still ongoing?
Is your overall claim worth over £2,000?
Please complete your details below and we’ll call You back to put your claim in to progress…