http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/tags.php?tag=stupid-people The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:05:36 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=534#post-1453 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:33:14 +0000 Mrblacker 1453@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>A Birmingham-based insurance firm has closed for business and left hundreds of professional motorists out of pocket, after settling just one claim.</p> <p>Unique Accident Cover, based in the city's Sparkbrook area, targetted taxi drivers and other groups who drive for a living, charging average premiums of £500 a year.</p> <p>However, after a claim from Ahmed Ali, a 54 year old cabbie from Handsworth, it has ceased trading.</p> <p>A spokesman for the administrators said the firm was sticking to the inference in its name.</p> <p>"Unique Accident Cover, while guaranteeing cover for a client, made it clear in the very small print of each policy, that only one would ever be settled, in accordance with the company name."</p> <p>"Mr Ali had a typical shunt with another driver and while that doesn't seem out of the ordinary, it was enough for the clause to kick in an invalidate any further claims."</p> <p>A statement on the firm's website states that after the first claim, all other claims were of a similar pattern and therefore not unique. Mr Ali had the good fortune to be the first to claim, and would therefore be the only one covered and compensated.</p> <p>"This was a time-bomb waiting to go off." Sheila McGregor from the Association of British Insurers said.</p> <p>"It has been suggested that we should have made people aware of the company's 'unique clause. To be hionest, as long as they paid their subs we didn't care. It is down to the client to ensure that they have read the very small print, even if it is in one point and covered by the company's logo."</p> <p>But at least one driver is set to challenge the firm's decision in court.</p> <p>Terry O'Dwyer, who had just taken out a policy, said his accident with a unicorn should have been settled, because as far as he can tell, no other claimaint had an accident with a mythical beast. </p>