REJECTION OF VEHICLE INSURANCE CLAIMS.

[stuart little]

I would take a lot of that with a hefty pinch of salt - there is case law that means that insurance can not be refused unless the reason is directly relevant to the claim - so no declared towbar as above, no insurance for towbar or trailer is reasonable - but no declared towbar and the car is hit by lightning - irrelevant and therefore they must pay out. The other let-out clause for the insurance company is if they can show that they would not have offered insurance for a car with that modification at the point of insurance - e.g. you insure a 1.0 polo and put a 5.0 v8 engine in it - most insurance companies could show that they would not have insured that car, and therefore even if hit by lightning (i.e. engine is irrelevant) they could choose to not pay out.

comment above about type of tyres is a red herring - if they are the correct size / profile etc. for your car and within manufacturer specifications for speed ratings / load carrying then you are fine - there is no basis on which an insurance company could refuse a claim - same for what fuel you put in / type of windscreen wipers you use / type of brake pads / etc. - all consumables and as long as you buy replacements suitable for your car and which are road legal you are fine...

my best experience with modifications was when insured on a range rover years ago and some road debris punched a hole through the oil filter at speed - engine went from running to solid in seconds! The insurance company sent out an engineer, they specified an engine rebuild which when done took the engine from 4.2 litres to c. 5.0 litres - all to their instruction... A couple of years later (so having renewed in-between)
- sorry sir, we can't renew this car it has an engine modification and we don't insure modified engines
- but you specified the modification and have renewed insurance since...
- sorry sir, computer says no - we have never insured modified engines...
- but... but... oh well...

Too fast / too slow is too simplistic the reality is that an accident on a bend where you are going at 70 in a 60 they will most likely pay out - doing 150 in a 30 / doughnuts / drifting / etc. probably not. As for too slow - would love to see a refused claim on that basis - how do you define too slow - other than on a motorway where there is an expectation around driving with the flow of the traffic there is almost no chance of ever being prosecuted for 'too slow' otherwise how do you slow down and stop!

fronting / business use / any other reason where you have lied to the insurance company - sure, it is fraud.

tinted windows - again, they would have to prove that the windows were material in causing the claim

so, soundbites without proper research...

generally speaking most people will never be in that situation - most people buy a car and drive it - they are honest in declarations when applying for insurance and they are not stupid in how they drive...

Going too slow in a minimum speed limit counts as 'driving too slow'.

 

[akirk]

Going too slow in a minimum speed limit counts as 'driving too slow'.

a) there are very few places where that can take place
b) it would be extremely difficult for an insurance company to demonstrate that this was a material issue in any claim - and therefore it would be tricky to ascribe it any role or deny a claim on the basis of going too slow. To do so, the insurance company would have to demonstrate that having driven faster there would have been no or a reduced claim... which is probably unlikely

 

[Agent_zed]

At the end of the day even if you can eventually argue that whatever the modification you didn't notify them about wasn't a contributing factor of an accident etc you will end up spending a significant amount of time and potential legal wranglings to sort it all out.

Much easier to mention everything upfront so you have minimal problems if you ever need to claim.

 

[ajs]

It's easy to spout on about insurance companies collecting premiums and finding dubious reasons to not pay claims. The reality is though that declined claims where the policyholder feels unfairly treated end up being considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service. The FOS consider both the actual terms and conditions as well as whether they are reasonable and can be readily understood by the policyholder. If they are unreasonable or fall into the "hidden small print" category they make a binding ruling against the insurer.

This is truer than often assumed. I used to work in insurance claims and the Ombudsman will always err on the side of the customer and throw out many provisions they perceive as unfair. Most policies don't have small print or legalese simply because the Ombudman doesn't like them. Ditto Act of God clauses - the Ombudman has held they can only be applied in such restricted circumstances most modern policies don't have them at all, but it's always trotted out as if it was a universal excuse not to pay out whenever the conversation turns to insurance bashing.

Most of the genuine greivances people have with insurance can be summed up quite simply: people do not understand their policies and often have not even glanced at the documentation. Like I see, try reading your policy, the small print is generally not there and the language is designed to be easily comprehended. As a claims handler that actually caused us issues at time: the everyday language used sometimes lacks the absolute precision needed to determine coverage. When that happened we would generally err on the side of the customer because we knew that is what the Ombudsman would do.

If you haven't read your policy you have no idea what it covers. Also consider where you buy your insurance: if you go to a proper broker they have a duty to ensure the product you buy is appropriate to your needs, it's an additional level of protection over going to a Meerkat or whatever and buying purely on price.

But no, people bash the insurers. I remember one claim in particular for travel cover in the wake of Covid. I was explaining what we could cover and it was along the lines of "we can cover up to this date, the day after is the 31st day of your trip and you only have 30 days of cover". The customer starts fuming accusing us of burying that limit in the (non-existent) small print in an obscure section of the policy.

Fortunately I knew that policy well. No, open up the policy booklet and literally the first thing you see on page three is a list of 8 or 9 things to check before your trip. Number 1 was "How long is your trip?" It's not our fault if you didn't make it that far.

 

[Geoff_S]

Google "do stickers affect my car insurance uk"

Apparently they might?

 

[highwood122]

I would take a lot of that with a hefty pinch of salt - there is case law that means that insurance can not be refused unless the reason is directly relevant to the claim - so no declared towbar as above, no insurance for towbar or trailer is reasonable - but no declared towbar and the car is hit by lightning - irrelevant and therefore they must pay out. The other let-out clause for the insurance company is if they can show that they would not have offered insurance for a car with that modification at the point of insurance - e.g. you insure a 1.0 polo and put a 5.0 v8 engine in it - most insurance companies could show that they would not have insured that car, and therefore even if hit by lightning (i.e. engine is irrelevant) they could choose to not pay out.

comment above about type of tyres is a red herring - if they are the correct size / profile etc. for your car and within manufacturer specifications for speed ratings / load carrying then you are fine - there is no basis on which an insurance company could refuse a claim - same for what fuel you put in / type of windscreen wipers you use / type of brake pads / etc. - all consumables and as long as you buy replacements suitable for your car and which are road legal you are fine...

my best experience with modifications was when insured on a range rover years ago and some road debris punched a hole through the oil filter at speed - engine went from running to solid in seconds! The insurance company sent out an engineer, they specified an engine rebuild which when done took the engine from 4.2 litres to c. 5.0 litres - all to their instruction... A couple of years later (so having renewed in-between)
- sorry sir, we can't renew this car it has an engine modification and we don't insure modified engines
- but you specified the modification and have renewed insurance since...
- sorry sir, computer says no - we have never insured modified engines...
- but... but... oh well...

Too fast / too slow is too simplistic the reality is that an accident on a bend where you are going at 70 in a 60 they will most likely pay out - doing 150 in a 30 / doughnuts / drifting / etc. probably not. As for too slow - would love to see a refused claim on that basis - how do you define too slow - other than on a motorway where there is an expectation around driving with the flow of the traffic there is almost no chance of ever being prosecuted for 'too slow' otherwise how do you slow down and stop!

fronting / business use / any other reason where you have lied to the insurance company - sure, it is fraud.

tinted windows - again, they would have to prove that the windows were material in causing the claim

so, soundbites without proper research...

generally speaking most people will never be in that situation - most people buy a car and drive it - they are honest in declarations when applying for insurance and they are not stupid in how they drive...

very good,i have this situation,i specify that i keep my vehicle in a garage overnight,its near a large tree,when we are alerted by the weather forcast of a storm i move the vehicle to my garden away from trees for the duration of the storm. what if its stolen during such a storm.