"Commercial travelling" exclusion on insurance.

[Johnnytheboy]

I've just had cause to look at our insurance policy for work vans, and it rather oddly excludes use for "commercial travelling".



Go Compare defines this as:

"Covers social use and also using the vehicle for commercial travel, for example delivering goods or door-to-door sales."

So basically, what I do.

However, as it specifically allows "use for the policyholder's business", can I assume that what it means is that I am not allowed to use my van for business purposes EXCEPT for my employer?

[TooMany2cvs]

Johnnytheboy said:

I've just had cause to look at our insurance policy for work vans, and it rather oddly excludes use for "commercial travelling".



Go Compare defines this as:

"Covers social use and also using the vehicle for commercial travel, for example delivering goods or door-to-door sales."

So basically, what I do.

However, as it specifically allows "use for the policyholder's business", can I assume that what it means is that I am not allowed to use my van for business purposes EXCEPT for my employer?

Ask your insurer to clarify - IN WRITING - that you are covered for what you think you're covered for.

[Johnnytheboy]

TooMany2cvs said:

Ask your insurer to clarify - IN WRITING - that you are covered for what you think you're covered for.

Yes, I've asked the relevant person in our organisation to ask the insurer already.

I was just wondering if anyone on here knew.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

You have pretty standard van "own goods" use there. Commercial travelling is more a car definition of use. For vans you basically have business use ex hire and reward (so carrying your own stuff) or including hire and reward (carrying other people's stuff for money, so a courier, haulier etc).

All car and commercial vehicle policies issued in a company name that give business use will usually only give the policyholders business use.

So, I have a company car, my wife can drive it, but she can't use it for her work. If I had a company van as a courier, I wouldn't normally be covered to use it for my own window cleaning round at the weekend.

[JonV8V]

Sounds like the key is whether you are delivering your goods or someone elses. Only sure way is to get your insurer to say. I presume from the insurers perspective the difference is a 3rd party having an interest in the event of a claim

[Jimmyarm]

ETA It's been too hot today, the 'policy holders business' trumps that last bit. As long as the business description is correct.

It's just a standard wording used, so if you are a butcher you can't also sideline as a courier unless it is declared to the the insurer and described under the Policy holders business.

And yes you wouldn't have non RTA cover if you used it for your personal business at the weekend as said above.

Edited by Jimmyarm on Wednesday 17th August 17:03

[Johnnytheboy]

Funnily enough the answer I have had from work is entirely different and I will paste it in later, basically: no door to door salesman use.

Suspect ph is right and work are wrong...

[brrapp]

Typical insurance company using outdated terms which no longer have meaning in the modern world. Do they perchance use the word ' pantechnicon ' to describe your van?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JonV8V said:

Sounds like the key is whether you are delivering your goods or someone elses. Only sure way is to get your insurer to say. I presume from the insurers perspective the difference is a 3rd party having an interest in the event of a claim

No, from insurers perspective the difference is that carriage of other peoples goods tends to be far more time critical, and far more driving in unfamiliar areas.

The number of claims on hire and reward commercial vehicle policies runs at around double that for carriage of own goods.

[dacouch]

Johnnytheboy said:

Funnily enough the answer I have had from work is entirely different and I will paste it in later, basically: no door to door salesman use.

Suspect ph is right and work are wrong...

They've given you the answer I would have given.

P.S Do not use Go Compare as a reference, they write articles that they have researched by googling for the purpose of SEO, their articles are littered with mistakes

[JonV8V]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

JonV8V said:

Sounds like the key is whether you are delivering your goods or someone elses. Only sure way is to get your insurer to say. I presume from the insurers perspective the difference is a 3rd party having an interest in the event of a claim

No, from insurers perspective the difference is that carriage of other peoples goods tends to be far more time critical, and far more driving in unfamiliar areas.

The number of claims on hire and reward commercial vehicle policies runs at around double that for carriage of own goods.

And you know because...

So if I'm delivering goods for my firm all over the country I'm safer than if I'm delivering goods for other people on my patch which I know well? Your explanation doesn't substantiate that scenario.

You could be right, but to be so assertive of that view you must have specific industry knowledge.

[GoneAnon]

I've just left van sales and can tell you that our Total Loss Protection insurance (like GAP, but reimbursing up to the original invoice value instead of just clearing outstanding finance) would not cover vans used to carry goods for others.

[Johnnytheboy]

dacouch said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Funnily enough the answer I have had from work is entirely different and I will paste it in later, basically: no door to door salesman use.

Suspect ph is right and work are wrong...

They've given you the answer I would have given.

P.S Do not use Go Compare as a reference, they write articles that they have researched by googling for the purpose of SEO, their articles are littered with mistakes

My finance director said:

What is actually meant by ‘commercial travelling’ in respect of the motor policy is use in connection with ‘unsolicited door to door sales people’, and so normal commercial business activities are fine. It looks like quite a broad cover exclusion, but what is meant is quite specific and defined within the policy. In addition, like the other exclusions (track days, speed testing, competitions etc) it is also a very general exclusion under standard motor policies and requires an extension to standard wording to include.

How does that sound then?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JonV8V said:

And you know because...

So if I'm delivering goods for my firm all over the country I'm safer than if I'm delivering goods for other people on my patch which I know well? Your explanation doesn't substantiate that scenario.

You could be right, but to be so assertive of that view you must have specific industry knowledge.

You could be delivering goods all over the country, but carriage of own goods includes the vast majority of van owners, builders, carpenters, plumbers etc. tens of thousands of them, many working in their specific town, saying they'll be there at 9 but not turning up until half past, etc. By and large pretty low risk.

Carriage of other peoples goods for money is the minority, and is largely made up of couriers, multi drop operations where the driver has a packed schedule and must keep to time. Often sent here, there and everywhere. It also includes freight forwarders, who have to deliver and collect goods from airports and ports to a strict timetable. Commercial laundry vans, again multi drop to hotels, hospitals, restaurants. All high pressure jobs with often low paid drivers relying on bonuses for meeting deadlines.

The difference in risk is reflected in the difference in price of the 2 covers, with hire and reward costing often twice as much as own goods cover.

[Sheepshanks]

Johnnytheboy said:

However, as it specifically allows "use for the policyholder's business", can I assume that what it means is that I am not allowed to use my van for business purposes EXCEPT for my employer?

We had grief at work when it was discovered some office based company car drivers where allowing their wives to use the car for their own jobs. Wives / partners are only covered for SD&P.

[JonV8V]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

JonV8V said:

And you know because...

So if I'm delivering goods for my firm all over the country I'm safer than if I'm delivering goods for other people on my patch which I know well? Your explanation doesn't substantiate that scenario.

You could be right, but to be so assertive of that view you must have specific industry knowledge.

You could be delivering goods all over the country, but carriage of own goods includes the vast majority of van owners, builders, carpenters, plumbers etc. tens of thousands of them, many working in their specific town, saying they'll be there at 9 but not turning up until half past, etc. By and large pretty low risk.

Carriage of other peoples goods for money is the minority, and is largely made up of couriers, multi drop operations where the driver has a packed schedule and must keep to time. Often sent here, there and everywhere. It also includes freight forwarders, who have to deliver and collect goods from airports and ports to a strict timetable. Commercial laundry vans, again multi drop to hotels, hospitals, restaurants. All high pressure jobs with often low paid drivers relying on bonuses for meeting deadlines.

The difference in risk is reflected in the difference in price of the 2 covers, with hire and reward costing often twice as much as own goods cover.

So it's your hunch...

[anonymous-user]

JonV8V said:

So it's your hunch...

it may be just a hunch, but he is correct.

"Courier' type accounts are a nightmare to run.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

desolate said:

JonV8V said:

So it's your hunch...

it may be just a hunch, but he is correct.

Wow, that was a lucky guess.

[JonV8V]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

desolate said:

JonV8V said:

So it's your hunch...

it may be just a hunch, but he is correct.

Wow, that was a lucky guess.

Well as when you were asked if you had industry knowledge you didn't offer any, then yes, it was a guess.

And if you think 3rd party liability is irrelevant, I don't quite understand why taxis are rated differently, why security lorries are rated differently etc..

[anonymous-user]

JonV8V said:

Well as when you were asked if you had industry knowledge you didn't offer any, then yes, it was a guess.

And if you think 3rd party liability is irrelevant, I don't quite understand why taxis are rated differently, why security lorries are rated differently etc..

Can you explain what you mean by the last paragraph? I'll try and provide a cogent answer