Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Axa claim without blame

Options
  • 12-02-2018 11:28pm
    #1
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,920 ✭✭✭


    https://youtu.be/14d2z4-c17Q Here’s the advert.

    “We don’t think you should lose your no claims bonus when hit by an uninsured driver”

    Surprised there hasn’t been a ASAI complaint against this. Note the use of the word Standard and in the small print bottom of the advert.


    From axa website “Claim Without Blame - if an identified uninsured driver hits your car, you won’t lose your No Claims Discount.”


    MIBI states Vehicle/property claims are covered under the MIBI compensation scheme however the alleged offending vehicle must be identified by means of a valid registration plate.

    Where the damaged vehicle is comprehensively insured, the MIBI Agreement stipulates that the claim must be dealt with by the insurer of the vehicle. The settlement of such claims is governed by the MIBI No Claims Discount Protocol. This Protocol, agreed by MIBI and its Members, guarantees protection of the claimant's No Claims Bonus.

    So you will not lose your no claims bonus with other MIBI insurers. As members of MIBI they have to cover you anyway if your fully comp anyway and this applies to other companies like Allianz, Aviva etc.

    Advertising this as an exclusive red line benefit to fully comp AXA customers is misselling.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    daheff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,866 ✭✭✭daheff


    Grab All Association wrote: »
    Advertising this as an exclusive red line benefit to fully comp AXA customers is misselling.

    How exactly is it misselling? Aren't they obliged by the agreement you reference to adhere to this benefit?

    All they are doing is highlighting a benefit of their policy that they think will appeal to potential customers. Nothing stopping other insurance cos doing likewise


  • Options
    #3
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #4
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I have rephrased your post to a generic statement and would point out that 99% of all advertising would fail that test.

    The implication (that it's an exclusive) is in the mind of the consumer, it is not stated as a fact so would not qualify as either misleading or false advertising. Advertising is about hype and puffery, you can't apply the same standards as for example would apply to someone giving evidence in court.


  • Options
    #5
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Many goods and services do this. Never is exclusivity mentioned. Some insurers refer to windscreen cover yet it's available on even bog standard policies throughout the industry. Toothpastes state claims about cleaning and protection, are they implying others don't?


Advertisement