Liverpool Lou

With the exception of car and motorbike insurance I have not looked at a policy in many years. There you go, then.

Go on, then, back up that nonsense with something rational and empirical.

"...subsided insurance". I have thought that was the last thing anyone wanted!

Good article. For the time, yes, but it's referencing 26-year old cases and even the most recent reference was 2007, that's a decade and a half ago, not 2023.

"it is small because they do not want you to notice it". Stop it, they do not. Literal small print is a myth these days...unless you can post a verifiable current example of such a thing.

Many? All insurance companies have claims departments, the job of which is to assess claims' legitimacy and reject those that are claiming for circumstances that are not covered. Why should any insurer pay out for anything that the policy holder was not covered for?

Obviously never looked the T&Cs recently then ? I have, you probably haven't but, go ahead, post an example of a verifiable current policy "where the text is so small it’s barely readable".

I couldn't disagree more adamantly, which seems to be the theme of our recent exchanges. There is so much evidence to the contrary. The thing is, in 2023 there is not the evidence that you claim, a couple of anonymous AN posters making claims about their unconfirmable experiences with unnamed companies is not enough evidence to rationally dispute the actual figures that anyone can access. The claims statistics for the insurance industry, in general, supports the fact that the majority of claims are settled in the policy holders' favour. Re your link (that I don't think you read), something more up to date than 26-years old would bolster your argument... "the company’s former CEO, Jerry Choate, admitted in 1997 that the company [Allstate] had reduced payments and increased profit". Even the most recent reference, 2007, is 16 years ago and the insurance industry has changed a lot in the last 20-30 years with stronger regulations and regulating bodies.

Thanks for the correction on the spelling and the dangers there. I wasn't correcting your spelling.

An anonymous insurance company, an unstated message with nothing ever on paper. Great case.

So we can assume you sell insurance with all defensive posts You're assumption is wrong. What you describe as defensive posts are, in fact, rational, accurate posts based on verifiable statistics and personal knowledge of the industry.

That is a completely false assertion, no insurers these days are permitted by their regulators to do that.

"I "accidently missed" declaring a previous condition". QED.

I didn't say it was did i? I didn't say that you did, did I?

One also has to bear in mind that that is cobblers.

It is the MO of all insurance companies to pay out all genuine claims that are covered by the policy. The financial liability of insurers' paying claims has little effect on them as insurance companies are covered by their own insurance for those liabilities which are massively outweighed by premium revenue.

"...they have a knee jerk reaction to try to wriggle out of paying..." Complete cobblers from another poster who has no idea how insurance companies operate.

"...like Khao Toa". You'd be safe there (wherever that is) although some people would say that you shouldn't do that in Koh Tao even though 99.9% of visitors never have a problem there, either.

No, that's your moral of your story but it is false.

It's no issue. Protection for policy holders is provided by the FSCS in the UK

Other embassies quote the figures that I used.

Ah, ok, 50 years ago, very relevant.

What issue is that? Which western insurers are going broke and being unable to pay claims?

An AN poster making a rational statement, very unusual here. It won't go down well, though!

But they don't do that with legitimate claims. Seems that a lot of posters here think that insurers should provide cover for circumstances that were not paid for by the premium.