Whose insurance should pay dealership's or the customers'?

[Retroman]

Unless you could convince a judge that the dealership were negligent, then you're going to need to claim on your own policy.

[Hungrymc]

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.

I guess the risk with this view is that anyone suffering flood damage after there have been warnings risks being judged to have taken insufficient precautions despite the warnings to allow the damage to happen…. Could lead to lots of home owners finding their insurance invalid.

The owners also knew where their cars were, and will have seen flood warnings in the press. Why didn’t they take some action / precaution ?

I understand your point, but I think you’re a little off target with this one.

[SiH]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Twig, in light of the apparent flood warnings that were issued in the area of the dealership in advance of the flooding occuring what would be considered to be the threshold of negligence? I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm just interested as to what level of diligence a company should have when the rain clouds start to form. It seems that these warnings may have been on local news as opposed to sirens sounding and the Police driving round making announcements on a PA system so it's certainly likely/possible that the dealership wasn't aware of the warnings.

[andburg]

Local Harley dealer had a flood few weeks back…when they knew there was a risk they moved all the bikes to a safe area.

When you leave your car with a dealer it’s in their care, to me the failed to asses and deal with the risk so there is an arguable case.

[silentbrown]

Hungrymc said:

I guess the risk with this view is that anyone suffering flood damage after there have been warnings risks being judged to have taken insufficient precautions despite the warnings to allow the damage to happen…. Could lead to lots of home owners finding their insurance invalid.

Your claim for sofas/fitted carpets won't be knocked back because you didn't move them upstairs. But if you're claiming for loads of water damaged portable electronics, that's likely another matter.

As the dealership's probably got a 7-figure insurance claim in for their own damaged vehicles, I'd expect their loss adjusters would be looking very hard at what they did/didn't do to mitigate their loss.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Hungrymc said:

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.

I guess the risk with this view is that anyone suffering flood damage after there have been warnings risks being judged to have taken insufficient precautions despite the warnings to allow the damage to happen…. Could lead to lots of home owners finding their insurance invalid.

Don't confuse an own damage claim with your liability to third parties. You're allowed to be negligent when claiming for your own damage. That's why your insurer fixes your car after you've run up the back of a third party or reversed into a pillar.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SiH said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Twig, in light of the apparent flood warnings that were issued in the area of the dealership in advance of the flooding occuring what would be considered to be the threshold of negligence?

Maybe, maybe not. That's why we have courts. To settle disputes on claims for damage following alleged negligence.

[Zeeky]

CanAm said:

Zeeky, is that a UK motor policy that excludes earthquake damage?

It is. Surprised me too.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zeeky said:

CanAm said:

Zeeky, is that a UK motor policy that excludes earthquake damage?

It is. Surprised me too.

I guess you can drive to Italy or somewhere else where it could happen.

[vikingaero]

Seems like the bigger problem at Inchcape JLR Derby is damage PR mitgation:

https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/customers-...

They have bouncers refusing people access to their own cars and refusing access to any loss adjusters.

Then there is another issue. Some people are finding that if they left a faulty car at JLR Derby, because it's a faulty car, they might not be covered by their own insurance!

[BertBert]

vikingaero said:

Seems like the bigger problem at Inchcape JLR Derby is damage PR mitgation:

https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/customers-...

They have bouncers refusing people access to their own cars and refusing access to any loss adjusters.

Then there is another issue. Some people are finding that if they left a faulty car at JLR Derby, because it's a faulty car, they might not be covered by their own insurance!

so says what looks like the Daily Wail of the car dealer world

[TwigtheWonderkid]

vikingaero said:

Then there is another issue. Some people are finding that if they left a faulty car at JLR Derby, because it's a faulty car, they might not be covered by their own insurance!

Despite popular misconception, it's actually very difficult for insurers to kick claims out. The limited circumstances in which they can do it are clearly laid out in the 2015 Insurance Act.

"We're not paying this claim because the car had defective brakes"
"Did the defective brakes cause the incident"
"errrr..well, no, it was destroyed in a flood"
"where"
"at a garage"
"and what was it doing there?"
"waiting to have the brakes fixed"

I'm not convinced the 2015 Insurance act allows for repudiation of a claim in those circumstances.

[Aretnap]

vikingaero said:

Then there is another issue. Some people are finding that if they left a faulty car at JLR Derby, because it's a faulty car, they might not be covered by their own insurance!

Of course they will be covered. What won't be covered by their insurance is whatever repairs the cars already needed doing before the flood.

So if your car was in because it needed new brake pads, your insurer would be entitled to repair all the flood damage but not replace the brake pads. Or if it was a write-off they could deduct the price of a set of brake pads from the settlement.

It gets a bit more complicated if it was in for a manufacturing issue/recall - your insurer would still be able to value it as a car that needed significant repairs at the time it was written off - and presumably you would have to take up the money you'd lost with JLR or the dealership who sold you a duff car (and can no longer put it right by fixing it due to it being written off).

Presumably that is what Direct Line means when they told the guy that they didn't cover faulty manufacturing issues. It doesn't mean that they won't pay out at all. The only way they could avoid paying out at all would be if the repairs were going to be so extensive and expensive that they could argue that the car was already worthless before the flood happened.

[Actual]

Aretnap said:

What won't be covered by their insurance is whatever repairs the cars already needed doing before the flood.

Interesting. Seems that if a vehicle is faulty in some way then the insurance cover reduces by the value to rectify the fault and for a major component such as the main battery on an EV the vehicle's insured value is effectively worthless. A wizard wheeze by insurance companies. Insurance companies are scum.

Also does anyone local to the area know if the site is still flooded or have flood water receded so that access to customer vehicles would be possible if it was permitted by the site owners?

[DP14]

Actual said:

Aretnap said:

What won't be covered by their insurance is whatever repairs the cars already needed doing before the flood.

Interesting. Seems that if a vehicle is faulty in some way then the insurance cover reduces by the value to rectify the fault and for a major component such as the main battery on an EV the vehicle's insured value is effectively worthless. A wizard wheeze by insurance companies. Insurance companies are scum.

Where's the 'wheeze'? It's a pretty standard term, e.g. "We will not pay...For pre-accident damage or damage unrelated to the current loss".

If you have, say, a BMW M3 with a broken gearbox parked on the street and someone crashes into it, why do you think you'd be entitled to the value of a fully functioning M3 rather than the value of an M3 with a broken gearbox?

[QuickQuack]

DP14 said:

Actual said:

Aretnap said:

What won't be covered by their insurance is whatever repairs the cars already needed doing before the flood.

Interesting. Seems that if a vehicle is faulty in some way then the insurance cover reduces by the value to rectify the fault and for a major component such as the main battery on an EV the vehicle's insured value is effectively worthless. A wizard wheeze by insurance companies. Insurance companies are scum.

Where's the 'wheeze'? It's a pretty standard term, e.g. "We will not pay...For pre-accident damage or damage unrelated to the current loss".

If you have, say, a BMW M3 with a broken gearbox parked on the street and someone crashes into it, why do you think you'd be entitled to the value of a fully functioning M3 rather than the value of an M3 with a broken gearbox?

Because they're still charging the customer to insure the full value of the car at the time. They take the value of the car into consideration when they calculate the insurance premium. Did they provide a refund for the reduced value of insurance that they were providing due to the defect? If not, then it shouldn't matter if the car is written off while waiting for routine servicing/manufacturer recalls or a straightforward repair, the insurer should provide full value of the insured vehicle. Either that, or refund some of the premium for the reduced value that they were providing the cover for.

[wazztie16]

Actual said:

Also does anyone local to the area know if the site is still flooded or have flood water receded so that access to customer vehicles would be possible if it was permitted by the site owners?

It's not flooded now. But when I drove past earlier, I don't recall seeing any vehicles. I didn't get a great look, mind, so could've been some, maybe the odd one.

[Fish]

Interestingly, all the other dealerships all moved their cars before they flooded only JLR did nothing and trashed all their cars.. maybe very interesting..

[Cold]

Fish said:

Interestingly, all the other dealerships all moved their cars before they flooded only JLR did nothing and trashed all their cars.. maybe very interesting..

JLR did nothing because JLR manufacture cars and do not run this dealership.

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

Fish said:

Interestingly, all the other dealerships all moved their cars before they flooded only JLR did nothing and trashed all their cars.. maybe very interesting..

Well that's just completely wrong isn't it. To name some of the big businesses on the same estate in the same predicament - Motorpoint Derby lost a lot of their stock and had to close their doors, Mertrux Mercedes the commercial dealer lost numerous vehicles and had their premises flooded out, Bravo Auto I believe were flooded out and the Inchcape Group had a storage compound down there full of brand spanking new motors, a lot of them Toyota's, destroyed.