On Monday, June 7, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, richard a barcan wrote:
> I think the point is being missed here.
> Insurance companies are, of course, in business to make profits. They want
> to collect premiums and only pay out if their liability to do so is clear.
> A good way of minimising their risk is to have a system which allows them
> to say, after they have the premium:
> you may think you have a claim, but we now know a fact which you knew or
> should have known at the time and may have affected our willingness to
> enter this contract with you. Therefore we will not pay out (but we keep
> your premium). The fact that you did not see the relevance of the fact is
> not our problem
> This is not really about honesty, more a matter of brilliant commerce
> dressed up as risk assessment. It is why Insurance companies are as strong
> as they are. It has worked well for years!
> Steve Fosdick <steve....@aom.bt.co.uk> wrote in article
> <37555EFF...@aom.bt.co.uk>...
> > David Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > I don't. What I do expect them to do is ask all relevant questions.
> > > Only they are able to say whether some fact is relevant, I'm not.
> >
> > and
> >
> > > How is an individual supposed to read the corporate mind of an
> > > insurance company? Convince me that this is possible.
> >
> > I agree with David here. When I came to renew my car insurance
> > recently, for the first time I tried some the WWW forms that enable you
> > to give the insurance company the relavent info and they get back with a
> > quote.
> >
> > One of these forms had a pull down list of possible vehicle
> > modifications and there are some of these (e.g. fitment of a towbar)
> > that most owners would probably overlook.
> >
> > The law has to cover the case of people deliberately witholding
> > signicant risk-affecting information when taking out insurance, but it
> > should be for the insurance company to prove that the insured "must have
> > known" that the info was risk affecting before they can wriggle out of
> > payment because the info wasn't provided. The best way they would be
> > able to do that is to include their best attempt at an exhaustive list
> > of the things they want to be told about on the proposal form.
> >
> > --
> > Steve Fosdick Internet: fosd...@aom.bt.co.uk
> > Voice: +44 1473 642987 MSMAIL: BTEA/BTLIP23/FOSDICSJ
> > Fax: +44 1473 646656 BOAT: FOSDICSJ
> > Snail: B29/G34, BT Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, IP5 7RE, England.
> >
Wow