Whose insurance should pay dealership's or the customers'?
Discussion
QuickQuack said:
Ok. If the area the dealership is located in receives THREE major flood alerts and the dealership does nothing to mitigate the possible effects, e.g., warn the customers who have working cars to collect them, arrange to move as many as they can to another location temporarily, are they still not negligent? They did nothing despite multiple warnings.
Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately it would come down to a judge's view of what could reasonably be expected of the dealership in the circumstances, guided by any case law that already exists. It's a judgement call which is not necessarily clear cut.In any event a third party has no right to make a claim directly against the dealers insurance policy - it is there for the benefit of the dealer, not the customer. The customers whose cars were damaged basically have two options
(1) Take the dealer to court. The dealer can have the claim over to hisn own insurer to deal with, and the insurers will make a judgement on whether to settle the claim or argue on court over whether the dealer was negligent or
(2) claim on their own policies and let their insurers worry about whether there is a case against the dealership.
(2) will almost certainly result in a quicker and less stressful resolution for the customers.
Aretnap said:
(2) claim on their own policies and let their insurers worry about whether there is a case against the dealership.
(2) will almost certainly result in a quicker and less stressful resolution for the customers.
Does #2, then suing dealership for your excess via small claims work?(2) will almost certainly result in a quicker and less stressful resolution for the customers.
QuickQuack said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wrong. My stuff left in your house only becomes your or your insurer's responsibility if you were negligent in the event that led to their damage or loss. If your cleaner or gardener gets injured, again it's down to negligence. If they were injured because they made an error, that's not down to you. If they were injured because they tripped on a hole in your stair carpet, then yes, it's down to you.
Your household policy covers third party liability, losses of other people's property or their injury as A RESULT OF YOUR NEGLIGENCE. But not otherwise.
Ok. If the area the dealership is located in receives THREE major flood alerts and the dealership does nothing to mitigate the possible effects, e.g., warn the customers who have working cars to collect them, arrange to move as many as they can to another location temporarily, are they still not negligent? They did nothing despite multiple warnings. Your household policy covers third party liability, losses of other people's property or their injury as A RESULT OF YOUR NEGLIGENCE. But not otherwise.
Aretnap said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wrong. My stuff left in your house only becomes your or your insurer's responsibility if you were negligent in the event that led to their damage or loss.
That would depend on the wording of the policy - Aviva's contents insurance, for example, explicitly includes cover for possessions of visitors to your home (other than paying guests). See page 5.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...
But if you prefer to buy a policy which only covers your bare minimum legal liability for other people's possessions I suppose that's up to you.
A dealership could say to their customers "we will be fully responsible for your vehicle whilst in our possession, regardless of how any damage occurs". And then pay extra on their insurance policy to provide this extended cover.
But from what's been said so far, the dealership didn't go down that route.
Mr E said:
QuickQuack said:
. Flooding of a dealership after a storm is just bad luck, nobody to blame,
This would appear to be the important bit. I come round to your house for dinner. I park on your drive. My car is hit by a meteorite. How successful will my claim against your insurance be?
Aretnap said:
That would depend on the wording of the policy - Aviva's contents insurance, for example, explicitly includes cover for possessions of visitors to your home (other than paying guests). See page 5.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...
But if you prefer to buy a policy which only covers your bare minimum legal liability for other people's possessions I suppose that's up to you.
Or if you buy a policy which only covers your possessions whilst in your own home, knowing that you regularly carry goods outside, then that's up to you too.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...
But if you prefer to buy a policy which only covers your bare minimum legal liability for other people's possessions I suppose that's up to you.
Andy86GT said:
While my Forester was in for some work at the franchised dealer some dumbass must have clouted it with their door.
When I went to collect and noticed this, the dealer couldn't have been more helpful, arranged a dent guy to fix it. No suggestion of me having to use my own insurance.
LOL, a debt guy would have cost the dealer £45, a bit different to many cars being written off! When I went to collect and noticed this, the dealer couldn't have been more helpful, arranged a dent guy to fix it. No suggestion of me having to use my own insurance.
Andy86GT said:
While my Forester was in for some work at the franchised dealer some dumbass must have clouted it with their door.
When I went to collect and noticed this, the dealer couldn't have been more helpful, arranged a dent guy to fix it. No suggestion of me having to use my own insurance.
Unless it was the dealer himself or one of his staff who dinged your door, he would probably have been within his rights to say "not my fault guv, sort it out with your own insurers". But I imagine he was more than happy to pay a scratch and dent man out of his own pocket as an act of good customer service, to keep a valuable customer onside.When I went to collect and noticed this, the dealer couldn't have been more helpful, arranged a dent guy to fix it. No suggestion of me having to use my own insurance.
This is a completely different situation though - the dealer is unlikely to be in a position to replace a couple of dozen written off landrovers out of his own pocket even if he was minded to, so goodwill gestures and customer service don't really come into it - it's a straightforward question of what his legal liabilities are and/or what his insurance policy covers.
silentbrown said:
Aretnap said:
(2) claim on their own policies and let their insurers worry about whether there is a case against the dealership.
(2) will almost certainly result in a quicker and less stressful resolution for the customers.
Does #2, then suing dealership for your excess via small claims work?(2) will almost certainly result in a quicker and less stressful resolution for the customers.
HTP99 said:
Andy86GT said:
While my Forester was in for some work at the franchised dealer some dumbass must have clouted it with their door.
When I went to collect and noticed this, the dealer couldn't have been more helpful, arranged a dent guy to fix it. No suggestion of me having to use my own insurance.
LOL, a debt guy would have cost the dealer £45, a bit different to many cars being written off! When I went to collect and noticed this, the dealer couldn't have been more helpful, arranged a dent guy to fix it. No suggestion of me having to use my own insurance.
NikBartlett said:
Mr E said:
QuickQuack said:
. Flooding of a dealership after a storm is just bad luck, nobody to blame,
This would appear to be the important bit. I come round to your house for dinner. I park on your drive. My car is hit by a meteorite. How successful will my claim against your insurance be?
As i mentioned earlier this will definitely be a 'Subrogation' claim but not necessarily a winning outcome for the claimants. The reason i quote this is purely from past experience when some of our signage blew off the gable end of my buisness premises in very strong heavy winds and damaged two neighbouring cars costing several thousand pounds of damage,obviously not happy they sought to recover the costs of the damage from my business insurance which to be fair i thought they were entitled to.. NO they had to claim individually through their own insurance policies through 'Subrogation 'to which my insurance company defended the claim as an act of God as my company had not been negligent in the maintenance of the signage therefore not liable... but I was able to claim for the replacement signage on my building's insurance. The neighbour's were not happy....
Personally I’d be ok to accept claiming on my own insurance but would be asking the dealer to cover the excess if the car had been moved from the space I’d parked it in. That said if the space id parked in didn’t get flooded and they moved it to somewhere that was obviously stupid I’d expect a bit more from them - along the lines of a courtesy car and a good deal on a replacement if mine was a total loss.
CRA1G said:
NO they had to claim individually through their own insurance policies through 'Subrogation 'to which my insurance company defended the claim as an act of God as my company had not been negligent
No they didn't. They never mentioned act of god at all. They just said they hadn't been negligent so were not legally liable.CRA1G said:
As i mentioned earlier this will definitely be a 'Subrogation' claim but not necessarily a winning outcome for the claimants. The reason i quote this is purely from past experience when some of our signage blew off the gable end of my buisness premises in very strong heavy winds and damaged two neighbouring cars costing several thousand pounds of damage,obviously not happy they sought to recover the costs of the damage from my business insurance which to be fair i thought they were entitled to.. NO they had to claim individually through their own insurance policies through 'Subrogation 'to which my insurance company defended the claim as an act of God as my company had not been negligent in the maintenance of the signage therefore not liable... but I was able to claim for the replacement signage on my building's insurance. The neighbour's were not happy....
There may well not be any claims against the dealer if the individual insurance companies reach the concussion that the dealer wasn't negligent.And just a thought, would the claim go down as a fault claim for each car owner that claims as there is no 3rd party who is liable? [assuming that is the case].
Edited by BertBert on Monday 13th November 04:09
To pick up on the 'Act of God' reference. Specific 'Acts of God' could be excluded from an insurance policy. Mine excludes, earthquakes but not meteorite strikes. I think the point Twig. is making is that the insurer needs to state specifically what it is not covering. There is no general rule of exclusion.
When claiming against the dealership for a breach of duty of care in failing to protect one's car from flood water damage, an 'Act of God' would be relevant because liability could only occur with respect to mitigation. The same applies to force majeure, which includes man-made events.
Force majeure is a term that is often found in contracts (Act of God, not so). Again, the contract would need to specify which events are included. For examples, war, terrorsim and riot are common.
With respect to the OP's question, Twig. has noted that there doesn't appear to be any contractual liability of the dealership and as Aretnap and HTP99 have said, the loss goes beyond a customer service matter.
This is controversial only because - understandably - we presume that the dealership would accept total responsibility for our cars when in its custody. If it did so I suspect its premiums would rise significantly and that cost would be passed onto its customers in the form of higher prices. Arguably, at least, this might be a better way of doing things as it would meet customer expectations.
When claiming against the dealership for a breach of duty of care in failing to protect one's car from flood water damage, an 'Act of God' would be relevant because liability could only occur with respect to mitigation. The same applies to force majeure, which includes man-made events.
Force majeure is a term that is often found in contracts (Act of God, not so). Again, the contract would need to specify which events are included. For examples, war, terrorsim and riot are common.
With respect to the OP's question, Twig. has noted that there doesn't appear to be any contractual liability of the dealership and as Aretnap and HTP99 have said, the loss goes beyond a customer service matter.
This is controversial only because - understandably - we presume that the dealership would accept total responsibility for our cars when in its custody. If it did so I suspect its premiums would rise significantly and that cost would be passed onto its customers in the form of higher prices. Arguably, at least, this might be a better way of doing things as it would meet customer expectations.
Zeeky said:
To pick up on the 'Act of God' reference. Specific 'Acts of God' could be excluded from an insurance policy. Mine excludes, earthquakes but not meteorite strikes. I think the point Twig. is making is that the insurer needs to state specifically what it is not covering. There is no general rule of exclusion.
When claiming against the dealership for a breach of duty of care in failing to protect one's car from flood water damage, an 'Act of God' would be relevant because liability could only occur with respect to mitigation. The same applies to force majeure, which includes man-made events.
Force majeure is a term that is often found in contracts (Act of God, not so). Again, the contract would need to specify which events are included. For examples, war, terrorsim and riot are common.
With respect to the OP's question, Twig. has noted that there doesn't appear to be any contractual liability of the dealership and as Aretnap and HTP99 have said, the loss goes beyond a customer service matter.
This is controversial only because - understandably - we presume that the dealership would accept total responsibility for our cars when in its custody. If it did so I suspect its premiums would rise significantly and that cost would be passed onto its customers in the form of higher prices. Arguably, at least, this might be a better way of doing things as it would meet customer expectations.
Zeeky, is that a UK motor policy that excludes earthquake damage?When claiming against the dealership for a breach of duty of care in failing to protect one's car from flood water damage, an 'Act of God' would be relevant because liability could only occur with respect to mitigation. The same applies to force majeure, which includes man-made events.
Force majeure is a term that is often found in contracts (Act of God, not so). Again, the contract would need to specify which events are included. For examples, war, terrorsim and riot are common.
With respect to the OP's question, Twig. has noted that there doesn't appear to be any contractual liability of the dealership and as Aretnap and HTP99 have said, the loss goes beyond a customer service matter.
This is controversial only because - understandably - we presume that the dealership would accept total responsibility for our cars when in its custody. If it did so I suspect its premiums would rise significantly and that cost would be passed onto its customers in the form of higher prices. Arguably, at least, this might be a better way of doing things as it would meet customer expectations.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff