Not Void The Fire Insurance
Not void your fire insurance.
I find this very strange case, but just shows how important it is to read the small print, as if you ignore the terms and conditions of the policy, your policy could be declared null and void.
In this case, was a condition for the FIRE insurance that the alarm system is well planted, and follow-up. The times were not easy for the insured, and he left the maintenance of the alarm system is switched off and as the BOW had not been paid for 6 months that keep track of the website.
Vandals broke in and set a fire in the factory. It was a company of furniture, and losses of more than £750,000.
The case went to the Supreme court of justice, the judge, however, had nothing to do with sympathy for the Directors of the company, and took ‘no pleasure’ in the sentence, that, as that was a condition for the combination of the insurance, the alarm was not controlled by an outside company, the insurer to resolve the claim.
There are often conditions to the insurance companies, we take the risk. We need to make sure that our cars have valid MOTs to do in order not to cancel.install the policy. We are committed to this insurance when we pay a speeding fine, but in my opinion strange is that you don’t have to tell you, if you decide to do the Speed Awareness course instead of punishment.
I just got over a case that is now before the insurance Ombudsman, where a policy of insurance cancelled the policy and returned all premiums because the policyholder without knowing it, had exceeded the value of the “items of value”, within your home insurance. He had insured the contents of the house for £60,000 but there was a clause that indicates that the value of objects of value should not be more than 66%.
We had to run to her daughter to the hospital, and while they were out, thieves taking goods and damage to property to the value of £70,000 smoothie. In the evaluation of the claim of the regulator that the value is calculated, if the value objects in the house exceeded £40,000. Normally, claims would be ‘to reflect on the average”, which is to argue under the insurance, the insurer in this case the under-insurance, the cancellation policy. As this case, he said it in front of the Ombudsman, as I wrote.
Back to the case at hand, where a fire claim was rejected because a security alarm and surveillance were approved, expires. Customers we run a hotel and there is someone at the reception of the hotel is at all times so that if the fire respond alarm activated, there is always someone on the obligation. We came round to the time when the annual contract with the ARC [measuring station] renewed. The Director of the Hotel wanted to cancel, as it was considered an unnecessary expense. I said that I agreed, but asked to check it to check with your insurance company, which had no objection. The insurer confirmed; the monitoring was a condition of the policy.
Often, in the insurance contract, there is a clause that the fire alarm in accordance with British Standards. It would be interesting to know if a similar claim was rejected due to the fire alarm system was not maintained enough.
Fire Call Ltd
Protection of people and property from fire