Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss
Somewhat true. the company i work for will give you two weeks and then cancel. The don't charge you for time on risk, and like I said earlier in insurance silence is acceptance so if the company does charge for all time on risk you would have to pay that because you didnt notify them before that you were not renewing and the minimum retained premium is stated on the renewal offer as well.
|
I know you're in the biz and I'm a real estate lawyer, so we both have some idea what we're talking about. Although insurance companies would like to say 'silence is acceptance', you can be damn sure that if my house burned down a week after my policy expired and I hadn't paid the renewal, the insurer would certainly resist paying that claim. The point is very basic from contract law, the consumer's contract terminated through the expiry of the term, there is no obligation to renew at law, therefore any charge expressed as a 'cancellation charge' is clearly invalid. Really in this case we're not talking about 'silence' anyway, the insurer is trying to create a forced renewal in the absence of a written notice to terminate a contract that expires on it's own anyway.
By analogy, it's like signing a one-year lease, then being charged a cancellation fee by the landlord for moving out at the end of the year without warning. Even if the landlord offers to renew the lease, there's no obligation on the part of the tenant to say anything to the landlord, and the land lord can only charge rent if the person doesn't move out. If the person moves out the landlord has no claim against that person) I recognize that the insurance industry has different considerations regarding grey areas and continuing coverage, but my point was that it should be incumbent on the insurers to inform the customer of the required procedures to 'not renew' in advance, rather than being underhanded about it.