Search results

Absolutely agree. Most people aren't across their RE contracts and insurance means your loss, should there be one, is protected (subject to your cover etc.etc.) I am simply explaining why the why the insurer was within their rights to decline the claim in this instance. Not giving advice...

No. The insurance was not negated, there was simply not an event that could give rise to a claim. The insured had no property rights over the insured asset and, as a consequence, made no loss. Insurance indemnifies loss. No loss, no claim. Have to disagree. Having the option to rescind...

I am actually.:) The fact that the contract could be rescinded means it wasn't binding. Equally, to go ahead with the contract when one had the option not to would amount, IMHO, to not mitigating your loss and would also result in the claim being declined. As I've said before, no...

In the absence of an financial/pecuniary interest, the insurer won't pay. This is because you don't have a financial interest in the property and/or haven't made a loss. As you had no obligation to settle, you have made no loss so there is nothing for them to indemnify you for. I

The question of whether an insurer will pay in these sort of instances will ulitmately come down to who has a pecuniary (i.e. financial) interest in the property. Obviously, you cannot cannot make a claim if you have not experienced a loss. Otherwise it wouldn't be insurance. it would be...