Hi DD, I guess the question is (a) Are they required by law to settle the Third Party claims - Answer YES they can't simply walk away and then (b) Can they legally pass these costs onto the driver and or policy holder - Answer YES if they have a clause in their policy that states that then (c) Can they simply pass on any costs they want to - completely unlimited - to the driver/policy holder - I doubt it and (d) if they have a policy to pass on costs are they legally obliged to have acted in good faith to minimise these costs to their customer - I suspect they do otherwise for all of these cases they would/could simply pass the problem straight to a debt collection agency as soon as the conviction happens and wash their hands of it. Why otherwise go through the process in the first place. If they are obliged to minimise these costs then they must comply with all requests for scrutiny and challenge? At what point do they hand this over to a debt collection company? and does that resolve them of any responsibility from that date? Were you dealing with 'Admiral' or a 3rd party? When you take out an Admiral policy over the phone they do not mention this clause. Then they send you 4 documents over e-mail none of which has this clause in it. They rely on you reading through a separate 40 page policy document. Given they are the only insurance company that has this clause then they should include it in those 4 documents and highlight it over the phone as a key difference in their policy. There is a case for hidden misrepresentation here especially as they heavily market multi-vehicle insurance - it is virtually impossible to insure younger drivers full except via Admiral - the reason why is simple - Admiral recover these costs whereas other insurance companies don't so their premiums are higher and unattractive. Admiral need to make this much clearer as I think most parents would not sign up to this clause and would simply tell their offsprings to wait till they are 25! - Time to call this out. And before the trolls turn up its not disimilar to the people who have been flooded recently. Some of them didn't read the 'no floods' clause and are not covered!
Has your son signed an indemnity form with Admiral?
I think they use it as some sort of admission but also say if you sign they'll help reduce the costs. It's a form of blackmail in my opinion.
I took out the policy on the phone. I requested the recording and they couldn't find it.
I totally agree about the paperwork and the responsibility of the policyholder to read all the terms and conditions. They need to clearly point out the major exclusions very clearly. You also need to read part of the Road Traffic Act to understand it fully. It's a ridiculous expectation and I suspect the majority of people do not get past the price and the extras like legal cover and hire car.
Comparison websites don't highlight this significant difference do they? When people look for insurance it is mainly driven by the price.
Also, if you have named drivers on the policy do you run them through all the T&Cs?
I'm not sure legally how they can have accepted them, but Admiral will claim you did.
See if you think there is enough evidence to raise a case with the FOS.