I have a theory: let me throw this out for your thoughts. It's playing devil's advocate a bit, but in trying to support Matt's logic this occurred to me.(posted 8421 days ago)When Rights of Sub are exercised, the Insurance Co typically pays out to the Lender and the Lender comes after you for the shortfall. Where the time limit under which the Lender has to do the chasing expires, the Insurance Co then picks up the mantle and carries on with the game. Are they chasing the same thing? I think not. The MIG payout is an insurance claim, is it not, and therefore the "nature" of the debt has changed. The Insurance Co are chasing you for the sum equal to their payout (and trying it on for the rest if there is a difference.) Assume a MJO was obtained by the Lender in Case A. This validates the debt in the eyes of the Law. The Lender can only chase you for the debt as detailed in the MJO. The Insurance Co cannot chase you for an equal (but materially different) debt too...are they named in the MJO? I bet they aren't. I think this is a legal point but vital to those being chased by anyone other than the Lender(or their appointed reps) where a MJO is in place. Case B - no MJO. Rights of Sub exercised...same as above but the Insurance Co are then chasing you after X number of years. The nature of the debt they are chasing is what? The original shortfall? Or the MIG payout? If it is the original shortfall...then the MIG clause wording is vital to determine which party has the 12 year rights. I think it can ONLY be the Lender in the old policies. The Insurance Co chase you after X number of years because the Lender failed to get anything. They are not chasing you under Rights of Sub..they were exercised already..they are chasing their MIG payout. Different debt..subject to the 6 year rules I believe - from the date of MIG payout - not when the debt reverted back to the Insurance Co after the Lender didn't get anything. Anyone follow me?