Hello all, I will shortly be undergoing a ligament reconstruction operation on my right ankle. I'll be off my feet for at least two months, unable to drive a car for three months and unable to drive a bus for six to twelve months.
Do we need to inform our insurance company? I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to drive our car until my consultant/GP tells me that I am once again safe to do so, so do they need to be told that I have had the operation?
Thanks in advance.
|
Probably not, but why not be safe and tell them anyway? They'll only say that they want to see a letter or similar from you doctor when you start driving.
Unless you think you might drive before that time?
Better that than having an accident and getting into some argument about whether or not the injury contributed.
|
>> Probably not, but why not be safe and tell them anyway?
Because I trust insurance companies about as far as I can throw them.
I'm more inclined to not inform them, but still ask my GP for a letter confirming that I'm a-ok to drive again so that if anything does happen I can just provide them with that letter.
I've heard of so many colleagues having a nightmare with insurance companies/the DVLA when they have had health issues. One chap I know is still waiting to get his PCV entitlement back eighteen months after his consultant gave him the all clear.
|
So don't tell them then, your call.
I don't think its the sensible approach, because if you want hassle try being involved in an injury accident and then having your insurance company try to decline it.
Your doctor is not able to decide what risk your insurer will or will not take. Neither are you.
|
|
When my wife had a hip op, we told insurers (Saga). They thanked us, and said no problem.. Premium did not change at next renewal.
|
|
My wife has been off driving for health reasons as discussed elsewhere. Never occurred to us to inform ins co as she just hasn't been driving and didn't do so until her doctor said it was ok to try. She had a go at the weekend, didn't enjoy it and self-imposed another week on herself of not driving. Not clear why that would be of any interest to her ins co ?
|
How many feet do you need to drive a bus? I usually get the impression they are being driven with the left foot anyway, though I have been told that the on-off brakes are a design feature.
Sorry. I wish you a rapid recovery.
The thing is, nobody can responsibly tell you not to inform your insurer. Only it can decide what is relevant to its view of the risk so the rule can only be if in doubt, tell the insurer.
If you don't, then it would be wise to at least be able to say (and preferably demonstrate) if required that you had taken reasonable steps to ensure that you did not drive while temporarily incapacitated, i.e. you had checked with your doctor.
FWIW, I wouldn't tell them. I trust the system as much as you do and I'd fully expect them to charge £35 admin fee as a reward for my good behaviour.
The PCV licence is another matter I imagine.
|
Bit of contradictory personal experience from my two recent arthroscopic hip repairs. In each case the hip was fully weight-bearing immediately after but there was significant bruising and soreness from the traction.
Same insurer (Aviva) but with a renewal in between. Remember also we have one manual car and one automatic, but no one at Aviva suggested I should drive one but not the other.
- First op (right hip): advised by the hospital not to drive until I could perform a pain-free emergency stop. In consultation with my physio I picked the moment when I thought this would be possible, and rang Aviva. No problem, they said, provided your consultant is happy. "He's delegated the decision to the physio, who says yes." In which case, go ahead. Thanks for letting us know.
- Second op (left hip): same advice about emergency stops, although the only real problem was prolonged sitting rather than working the pedals. Physio advised after two weeks to start with the automatic, so I rang Aviva. This time, they told me there was no need to tell them at all, provided I hadn't suffered anything that would be notifiable to DVLA. That list (just looked again) is longer than I remembered but I'm not on it.
Which all means I can only echo what the others say: tell your insurer and be prepared to be told there was no need. Hope the surgery goes well and that you get on well with your physio; you're going to get very well acquainted.
}:---)
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Mon 3 Nov 14 at 16:56
|
This link takes you to access to the lot:
www.gov.uk/current-medical-guidelines-dvla-guidance-for-professionals
I recommend you read it carefully and make sure you ask any needed questions of your consultant. I think consultants are pretty well au fait with the rules and advise accordingly.
I'm not going to detail my dealings with DVLA but suffice to say, they do know about my medical condition and the fact it is fully declared and a licence issued is usually enough for most insurance companies. While I'm fairly sure there was a law fairly recently passed that means insurance companies cannot load here, I cannot find it. Certainly the ones I've used just ask do DVLA know and have they imposed conditions? When one answers "yes they know and haven't imposed conditions" they lose interest and carry on.
|
Being temporarily out of action and not driving doesn't on the face of it seem like something a company would need to know about. If you are not driving there is no risk, and insurers want to know about things that might increase risk, not reduce it.
But an on-going condition that could conceivably increase risk is another matter. It's their job to assess that risk, and it's their right to assess it as minimal, not yours.
|
>> Being temporarily out of action and not driving doesn't on the face of it seem
>> like something a company would need to know about. If you are not driving there
>> is no risk, and insurers want to know about things that might increase risk, not
>> reduce it.
OK as far as it goes Cliff but (see Runfer's thread) not all cars are laid up while owner is not driving. While I was hors de combat with a broken hip my daughter, then 19, drove me around and used car more herself than she could have done otherwise.
A car obviously unused on a driveway or street could be a target for theft and vandalism.
Better to advise the insurer while being prepared to contest any loading that might be suggested.
|
Good points - I hadn't thought about a car parked unused in the street being an obvious target.
I suppose too you are right that if the driving is transferred to another named driver with a higher risk, then for the duration that driver becomes the main driver, hence notifiable.
|
"hence notifiable."
only at renewal
|
>> "hence notifiable."
>>
>> only at renewal
Not sure that's right. In scenario like mine where a much younger and less experienced driver was temporarily main user you might be vulnerable in event of an accident. Different perhaps where drivers are husband/wife and are both in low risk professions.
Better safe than sorry would be my motto.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 14:33
|
As long as you acted in good faith at renewal or inception and declare any material facts to the insurer you are not obliged to notify the insurer of any changes in your circumstances until renewal UNLESS there is a condition in the policy to that effect. As long as you were unaware of any potential change at inception there is no need to declare it mid-tem
Insurance is a a contact and the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as is the policy holder. Those terms canot be varied at the discretion of one party.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 14:45
|
I grabbed a copy of the AXA motor policy. It contained the words....
"You must also advise us of any changes to your information via My AXA Account during the policy period of insurance"
And that's probably typical. They then list "the types" of information they want to know immediately and "the types" of information that can wait until renewal.
Since "the types" is a pretty dodgy clarification, I would go with Bromp's advice; "better safe than sorry".
|
Ok so hypothetically, I have an accident in my wife's car next weekend. She hasn't been driving her car for a few weeks for health reasons and she is the insurer with me as a named driver.
We've not mentioned that to them but why am I not covered for the accident?
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 20:29
|
|
Myself and Mrs O'Reliant rarely drive each others cars, but we are down as joint users of each vehicle just in case there comes a time when one of us needs to drive the other car for an extended period.
|
>> Myself and Mrs O'Reliant rarely drive each others cars, but we are down as joint
>> users of each vehicle just in case there comes a time when one of us
>> needs to drive the other car for an extended period.
That touches the issue of main user, one which just occasionally bothers me.
Like you we have two cars one registered/insured in my name and one in hers, named drivers for each other with offspring also named drivers on mine. Both are Berlingos, mine an 05 1.9 IDI and hers a 63 1.6 HDi 115. I'm a retired Civil Servant and she's a peripatetic supply teacher and we're both mid fifties.
She drives my car only occasionally. Hers though is the 'family' car and while she drives it most days for work I do lion's share of driving on long distance trips including holidays, towing the caravan, and Uni support/re-supply missions. Depending on where her work is, and this term it's very local, I'm ending up driving it more miles than she does.
Who is main user?
I'd contend it's her as she has care/control day to day but I guess an insurer could try and argue otherwise. I'd be more worried if I were much younger/older or a rock star but given risk profiles as they are I doubt it makes much difference.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 21:50
|
>> Ok so hypothetically, I have an accident in my wife's car next weekend. She hasn't
>> been driving her car for a few weeks for health reasons and she is the
>> insurer with me as a named driver.
>>
>> We've not mentioned that to them but why am I not covered for the accident?
You are covered because non disclosure is not a material fact to the accident.
If however she had had an accident on the first day driving after the treatment, and you or her hadn't told them it *could* become a material fact.
Note the use of the word "could". Not will, not wont, but possibly maybe.
Insuarance companies make money by taking the maximum possible in premiums and paying out the least possible in claims. You don't want to help them in the latter goal.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 21:33
|
>>We've not mentioned that to them but why am I not covered for the accident?
1) The was no intend to defraud
2) The insurer cannot show that they would have treated the risk differently had they known
3) The undisclosed fact was not relevant to the accident.
If, as Zero said, your wife had had the accident it is quite possible that either 2) or 3) could be true, or at least alleged to be so.
WRT to Bromp's point about who is the main user, then whichever is the main user, it is difficult to see how the insurer could allege 2). Its possible if there is something substantially different about the driving history of one partner and there is only one vehicle then it could arise, but that is not the case here.
However, given that there are two vehicles, two "similar" drivers and one vehicle will almost certainly be rated on each driver then it simply does not arise.
Ultimately it comes down to this;
a) If the fact is not material, then disclosed it will have no impact on premium or conditions, and if undisclosed but discovered it will have no impact on future claims.
b) If a fact is material, then disclosed it may well have an impact on the premium or conditions and undisclosed but discovered it may well have an impact on future claims.
If the insurer will regard it as a), then what's the harm in disclosing it? If the insurer considers it b) then its one hell of a risk not to disclose it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 01:48
|
|
Think of it this way, you pull out of a junction and are hit by a motor bike which you did not see for whatever reason. You are proved to be at fault. The motor cyclist survives but needs lifetime nursing care, along with legal and other costs the settlement runs to several million pounds. The insurer looks at the policy and declarations in fine detail including recorded phone conversations and finds a get out. And the payout to the injured person is reduced. He then sues you for the balance. Your house and everything you own is now in the pot to settle this claim. This may not be feasable but is food for thought.
|
>>This may not be feasable but is food for thought.
There's certainly precedent when deliberate falsehoods have been used to obtain insurance, such as 'fronting' where a parent insures a car that is primarily driven by a child.
Unwelcome bill for ££££££ lands on the parent when the insurance company pays the victim then seeks to recover their losses from the fraudulent party.
|
>> Think of it this way, you pull out of a junction and are hit by
>> a motor bike which you did not see for whatever reason. You are proved to
>> be at fault. The motor cyclist survives but needs lifetime nursing care, along with legal
>> and other costs the settlement runs to several million pounds. The insurer looks at the
>> policy and declarations in fine detail including recorded phone conversations and finds a get out.
>> And the payout to the injured person is reduced. He then sues you for the
>> balance. Your house and everything you own is now in the pot to settle this
>> claim. This may not be feasable but is food for thought.
The insurance company cannot avoid the motorcyclist's claim and they will pay out in full. They will, or at least can if so inclined, pursue you for their losses.
Outcome is same, your house, savings and everything else are susceptible.
|
"They will, or at least can if so inclined, pursue you for their losses. "
Effectively this means that if you have no assets and obtain insurance fraudulently your insurers will meet your claims with no financial penalty. You will not be prosecutes because as far as the police are concerned you have a valid certificate of insurance.
You might have difficulty getting further insurance but you can always give a false name.
|
>>
>> You will not be prosecutes because as far as the police are concerned you have a valid certificate of insurance.
>>
The police would not be involved in the compensation, it is a civil matter. They might prosecute you for fraud if the insurance company complains.
|
"The police would not be involved in the compensation, it is a civil matter. They might prosecute you for fraud if the insurance company complains."
I don't think I said they would be involved in the compensation. I was simply making the point that as far as the police are concerend if you have a valid certificate of insurance then you have insurance.
Never known anyone to be prosecuted for obtaining insurance fraudulently. Insurers could report a fairly substantial number of their policyholders for this in my experience.
|
>> "The police would not be involved in the compensation, it is a civil matter. They
>> might prosecute you for fraud if the insurance company complains."
>>
>> I don't think I said they would be involved in the compensation. I was simply
>> making the point that as far as the police are concerend if you have a
>> valid certificate of insurance then you have insurance.
>>
>> Never known anyone to be prosecuted for obtaining insurance fraudulently. Insurers could report a fairly
>> substantial number of their policyholders for this in my experience.
But have their not been cases of the Insurance company declaring the insurance invalid at the time of the incident because of fraud, and the police subsequently prosecuting for no insurance because it was deemed invalid?
|
Perhaps, but the usual principle is that the insurer may avoid a claim or may recover its losses, rather than being able to avoid the whole policy.
Avoiding the whole policy would have implications (since that policy would therefore NEVER have existed) insofar as both any previous acts of driving and any previous claims since the contract breach (non-disclosure) rather than simply enabling the insurer to avoid its obligations for the incident concerned. This could also go against their responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act.
Usually/often though the insurer will immediately cancel the insurance with immediate effect.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 18:43
|
Car Insurance & Operations - No FM2R
