Page 315 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

Sent: 02 February 2015 14:56
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE: MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Lorraine,
Thanks for your comments, don't worry I want to get this resolved as much as you and
Simon, it’s taken far too long already, so before I send an amended Indemnity Letter (LOI)
please confirm my understanding as listed below -
- I will amend the registration of the Ford Zetec to show MA57LDY. Broadsure
originally gave us the incorrect registration and as you say it was a while before this error
was corrected and our policy history was confusing due to the incorrect Clio that I was not
aware of previously.
- You are correct, looking back on the instructions from Broadsure I cannot see that
they instructed Underwriters to delete the Renault Clio that was added in error following
receipt of advices from Broadsure. I can amend the comment in the letter to show that this
vehicle was added to the policy
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
512+,
Page 315 of21
incorrectly following an effort on your part to correct the registration number of the Ford
Zetec and was a broker error, are you happy with this?
- The letter states cover was for Social Domestic & Pleasure and Motor Trade Use.
Motor Trade use would cover Simon to carry a Motor Mechanics tools being used in
connection with Motor Trade but not any tools that would typically be used for any other
purposes such as perhaps, paint/brushes/ladders/plumbing/Electrical(domestic/commercial
except auto electrical) and so on. This is standard cover; however, I am happy to expand on
this statement in the letter if you would like me to in order to clarify that point?
- The Police officer asked if Simon would be covered for the carriage of tools to drive
around doing "odd jobs". Later in the call he again confirmed that Simon was not covered "to
drive around doing jobs". I sent you the call so you can listen to it yourself but the tone of the
enquiry was suggesting that Simon was doing jobs not connected to the Motor Trade however
I do feel there is plenty of room here for misunderstanding. If the question had been more
specific with the officer stating that Simon had tools connected with the Motor Trade in the
vehicle would he be covered- Yes. If he said that the tools were not connected to the Motor
Trade (as per my comments above) then the answer is - No. Not something I can put into a
Letter of Indemnity but certainly something to be argued with the CPS/Courts.
- I'm happy to confirm in the letter that cover was in force under this policy on the
14/11/2013.
Once I hear back from you, I will revise the LOI accordingly and e-mail it across for you to
sign off, I will also send an original in the post just in case!
If you need anything else please do not hesitate to drop me and Andy a line, I am keeping
Andy in the loop as I will be on leave from 12/2/15 - 9/3/15 so he will need to deal with
anything in my absence.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager |
UK Specialty Division of Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ