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

[silentbrown]

Oceanrower said:

You can’t say it doesn’t. You probably can say YOURS doesn’t.

Well, yes. You can get cover for anything at a price, even motorsport use.

But fully comp cover including fire and theft for "driving other cars" isn't going to be on any standard consumer policy. Trader and similar specialist policies, maybe.

[Ganglandboss]

Zeeky said:

Although it's possible there are some car policies that do offer comprehensive DOC cover, citing a bike policy isn't evidence of this.

I have fully comp DOC on my Adrian Flux policy. It was offered as an extra and has a limit of £20,000.

[Aretnap]

silentbrown said:

But fully comp cover including fire and theft for "driving other cars" isn't going to be on any standard consumer policy. Trader and similar specialist policies, maybe.

Depends what you mean by "standard" I suppose. There are high end consumer policies from the likes of Hiscox and Chubb which do provide comprehensive driving other cars cover as standard. You do have to have a fairly fancy car and/or buy their (expensive) home insurance as well before they'll cover you though, so they're on the edge of what you might call a standard consumer policy.

[MrC986]

One of my colleagues use to work for the local council and there is a known history of flood risk for the site in question I'm told....the planning application when the site was developed out for the current dealer was revised I understand to deal with potential flood risk - if this is the case then such information could change a legal case as the dealer may be accused of knowing of an increased chance of flooding. I think the dealer is showing very poor behaviour to their customers and it's going to take a class action to shift their thinking (and their insurer's).

[BertBert]

MrC986 said:

One of my colleagues use to work for the local council and there is a known history of flood risk for the site in question I'm told....the planning application when the site was developed out for the current dealer was revised I understand to deal with potential flood risk - if this is the case then such information could change a legal case as the dealer may be accused of knowing of an increased chance of flooding. I think the dealer is showing very poor behaviour to their customers and it's going to take a class action to shift their thinking (and their insurer's).

I'm just wondering where you think they would get the money from to cover all those damaged cars?

[pingu393]

MrC986 said:

One of my colleagues use to work for the local council and there is a known history of flood risk for the site in question I'm told....the planning application when the site was developed out for the current dealer was revised I understand to deal with potential flood risk - if this is the case then such information could change a legal case as the dealer may be accused of knowing of an increased chance of flooding. I think the dealer is showing very poor behaviour to their customers and it's going to take a class action to shift their thinking (and their insurer's).

This is what the local news is saying.

It's saying that they were warned and should be preparing for possible floods, especially after the flood defences were put in place in the city centre. The water has to go somewhere.

[GasEngineer]

BertBert said:

I'm just wondering where you think they would get the money from to cover all those damaged cars?

From the premiums they charge like any other insurance company ?

[BertBert]

GasEngineer said:

BertBert said:

I'm just wondering where you think they would get the money from to cover all those damaged cars?

From the premiums they charge like any other insurance company ?

By they I mean the dealership as presumably their insurance has denied responsibility

[vikingaero]

Not a fan of the Geoffs Buys Cars channel, but I watched the video last night. A google search shows other topics discussing negligence and bailment law which seems to err more towards Inchcape and changed to liability with regard to known flooding risks in previous years at the site.

But what was inconceivable was that JLR Derby moved all their new stock at the front of the dealership and yet left all the customer cars to drown. So they knew it was going to flood and saved their own skin. Nice.

The board of Inchcape have made a financial decision that the fallout - financial, reputational and lost customers is worth the decision they have made.

[CanAm]

vikingaero said:

Not a fan of the Geoffs Buys Cars channel, but I watched the video last night. A google search shows other topics discussing negligence and bailment law which seems to err more towards Inchcape and changed to liability with regard to known flooding risks in previous years at the site.

But what was inconceivable was that JLR Derby moved all their new stock at the front of the dealership and yet left all the customer cars to drown. So they knew it was going to flood and saved their own skin. Nice.

The board of Inchcape have made a financial decision that the fallout - financial, reputational and lost customers is worth the decision they have made.

I cant see Tom Hartley giving up easily.

[silentbrown]

I had a look at the flood risk assesment when they applied for planning.

Effectively accepting that vehicles outside would be flooded, and more concerned that those flooded vehicles didn't start floating downstream off the site.

"To mitigate against the dispersal of the cars to areas off the site by the flood waters a secure fenced compound will be provided. The perimeter of this will be protected by a bespoke fence to a height of 47.450m thus providing a freeboard of 600mm. the fence will be designed to withstand the impact of a 2500kg vehicle."

https://eplanning.derby.gov.uk/online-applications...