Caravan Club Non Insurance Policy
Comments
-
as you didn't make it clear at all (you posted it cost me more not will cost me more) I thought you had two running at one time, not a good idea, just a warning David.
Again no need to be insulting about my ex profession, but I suppose it makes you happy so carry on
2 -
so each one would pay out the full amount on the same claim? I'll bow to your superior 'legal' knowledge but that sounds too good to be true?
I remember a case where someone lost their baggage, and as the airline compensated them they couldn't claim on insurance? I thought you could not profit from insurance?
But you're the expert.
3 -
You have slanted this naturally to the club but David's new insurance policy could/would also do the same I would imagine. Why would it do otherwise?
I can't imagine it (SAGA) paying out the full amount if they knew the club's covers was also paying out any (reduced) payout?
So in essence then each could/would be paying out a share of the claim? And then of course wouldn't two no claim discounts be affected and not one?
So despite your insulting post about my not grasping the difference I was quite correct in saying it was a brave move to have two insurances/covers on one caravan at one time?
1 -
I don't point score David, I merely state facts, are you saying you did not write:
I now have insurance with SAGA its cost me £60 more than club "cover"
I now have is the present tense, not future. It does not grammatically agree with your: The new policy starts when the other ends.
So you see I can only go by what you write, nothing to do with point scoring.
The past present and future all met in a pub, it was very tense
I hope you take note of the above post though.
4 -
You mean like your one, HD.
4 -
well not quite as you replied.
And you read it wrong, the above post, means just that, the post above the one you were reading (to DD), not the current one you were reading where it said that. Always happy to help David, that's what teachers do best
0 -
thank you HD but I don't need another job, and it is not necessary if people use correct English and of course spelling
0 -
We are going round and round in circle here. Any insurance company can refuse or reduce a claim for any number of reasons from not filling out the application form correctly, exaggerating the claim, breaking the law etc.. etc..
At the moment we have no evidence that the club will default on any claim so isn't the whole thread speculation and a vehicle for the club haters 'to have a go'
4 -
The third party bit is what decided me. I recall taking legal action, as I said earlier for an amount just over £5,000 in today's money. No Ombudsman then. In the same circumstance today, without the Ombudsman and for that amount I would let it go and accept the loss of a relatively small amount.
0 -
A big plus 1 to that Oneputt
2 -
Yes we are going around. Any insurance company can undervalue a third party claim despite the evidence. It happened to me, but for the last 20 years there was the option to refer to the Ombudsman with regard to insurance companies. You could consider it an additional cover. It is that simple. If you do not wish that cover it is up to you entirely - Some do and some don't. Entirely their choice.
1 -
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!
1
