Hmmmm

I wonder if below is the method of their duplicity!

"All insurance policies are required by law to pay for Third Party losses
caused by the insured party. This is enshrined in the Road Traffic Act, BUT,
and this is a massive but, you cannot assume that means you are covered.
Many policies (and I am talking generally) contain a clause saying something
to the effect that "If XYZ insurer is obligated to meet a claim it would
otherwise not pay, then XYZ insurance co may reclaim the settlement costs
from the insured." This clause covers the insurance company on a number of
fronts, including where the insured party has obtained cover under false
pretences. But some insurance companies are also applying this clause to
claims from the 'Ring, and the Ombudsman has so far come down on their side."

The above was obtained from a discussion forum on the Adrian Flux site, which to be fair is biassed.

I understand that one such case is at the high level of appeal as we speak, and is being handled by a Legal firm in Leeds. I think we need to watch that with great interest.

I find the above unsatisfactory though - surely the above is tantamount to refusing to provide cover in accordance with the Road Traffic Act? At the point at which they pay out and then ask for the money from you, it is simply a loan surely, and not insurance!!!!

@ Porkie - hi fella, long time no speak - I take it from your sig that you have bought something italian and red (not salami!)

JJ