Page 467 - tmp

P. 467

From: Wood, Peter [Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
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, its 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
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

From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 31 January 2015 01:47
To: Wood, Peter
1445

462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472