Having a house and two cars, we have been in the habit of selecting the 'optional' legal cover for all three. Does anyone have any experience or views as to whether this is necessary, or is it just another way of parting the punter from his money?
Thanks in advance.
GPG ---
Personnally I'd say there was no point going for more than one. You would just be duplicating the same cover IMHO. These policies are not necessary but in todays litigatious society who knows.
I don't generally buy these policies. My opinion is that you could buy cover at the time if you needed it. On one occasion I did benefit from such a policy, but it was thrown in for free.
YMMV, M.
There are different kinds of "legal cover". One covers you against "legal liability", i.e. anything you may become legally liable for; you might be walking along the pavement, not looking where you're going, crash into a lamppost, bounce off, and fall onto the bonnet of a parked brand new Ferrari, scratching it with the fragments of the flower pot you were carrying. The insurance would cover the cost of de-denting and re-spraying, this is the type you'd be likely to get as an add-on to some house policies.
The type you'd get with car insurances (and some house ones) only covers you for the cost of *legal fees* you would incur in defending or bringing a claim by or against someone else, but not against the consequences of losing a case. Some of these will not cover the cost of bringing an action but only of defending one.
ymmvQAB: Read the fine print.
House policy add-ons may expressly exclude the type of cover typically offered as car policy add-ons. Car policy add-ons may well be restricted to claims related to the vehicle whose policy it is added on to, so if you have two cars, one Legal Protection add-on won't cover both cars.
So yes, you might well need all three.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.