Insurance reject “fire” claim
Discussion
Insurance reject “fire” claim
Hi Folks. Posting this question as a friend is having a mare with her insurance company that are insisting they have no liability. Her little Fiat 500 caught fire which resulted in a heap of damage but unfortunately did not melt it enough to be an obvious write off.
I just checked my own policy with Admiral out of curiosity and there is a nifty little exclusion in the section headed Fire and Theft.... whats NOT covered “for any loss or damage caused by mechanical, electrical, electronic, computer failures, breakdowns or breakages”.
On the basis that cars do not spontaneously combust the fires are either maliciously caused or due to a failure in components. This could mean “fire” cover is only valid if a person sets your car on fire which is crazy.
Policy in question is fully comp and insurance co are flat out refusing to do anything.
Any ideas on how to get the insurance to pay up?
Many thanks
Hi Folks. Posting this question as a friend is having a mare with her insurance company that are insisting they have no liability. Her little Fiat 500 caught fire which resulted in a heap of damage but unfortunately did not melt it enough to be an obvious write off.
I just checked my own policy with Admiral out of curiosity and there is a nifty little exclusion in the section headed Fire and Theft.... whats NOT covered “for any loss or damage caused by mechanical, electrical, electronic, computer failures, breakdowns or breakages”.
On the basis that cars do not spontaneously combust the fires are either maliciously caused or due to a failure in components. This could mean “fire” cover is only valid if a person sets your car on fire which is crazy.
Policy in question is fully comp and insurance co are flat out refusing to do anything.
Any ideas on how to get the insurance to pay up?
Many thanks
Fiat are not interested and don't want to know.
I think Fiat and Insurance are working on basis that denial and silence means the only way to push for compensation is to bring legal action, which my friend cant afford to do. its just shocking.
im actually just as concerned about what this means for me and everyone else out there that blindly believes that if their car caught fire, insurance would cover it.
I think Fiat and Insurance are working on basis that denial and silence means the only way to push for compensation is to bring legal action, which my friend cant afford to do. its just shocking.
im actually just as concerned about what this means for me and everyone else out there that blindly believes that if their car caught fire, insurance would cover it.
There will no doubt be a crowd of posters along shortly saying "should have read the small print", but I for one am really surprised at this - my car is insured with Privilege and I suspect that the policy wording will be the same.
I'd be interested to know just how many car fires are the result of vandalism Vs electrical faults.
That's on hell of a get out clause!
I'd be interested to know just how many car fires are the result of vandalism Vs electrical faults.
That's on hell of a get out clause!
The usual advice is to request their formal complaints procedure in writing and then follow it. If still not resolved than take it to the ombudsman.
Theres usually quite a difference between 'the insurer' and someone who works for them in a contact centre, but should a bad decision be defended by the insurers then the ombudsman will bring them into line.
Theres usually quite a difference between 'the insurer' and someone who works for them in a contact centre, but should a bad decision be defended by the insurers then the ombudsman will bring them into line.
GC8 said:
The usual advice is to request their formal complaints procedure in writing and then follow it. If still not resolved than take it to the ombudsman.
Theres usually quite a difference between 'the insurer' and someone who works for them in a contact centre, but should a bad decision be defended by the insurers then the ombudsman will bring them into line.
But the contract explicitly excludes fire damage caused by mechanical / electronic fault?Theres usually quite a difference between 'the insurer' and someone who works for them in a contact centre, but should a bad decision be defended by the insurers then the ombudsman will bring them into line.
BritishRacinGrin said:
a.k.a. 'crashing' into water!?
Or in a different light, mechanical failure 
I read somewhere that the insurer ia not liable for the part that caught on fire, which would be the responsibility of a warranty, but is liable for the consequential damage done by the fire.
Dog Star said:
There will no doubt be a crowd of posters along shortly saying "should have read the small print", but I for one am really surprised at this - my car is insured with Privilege and I suspect that the policy wording will be the same.
I'd be interested to know just how many car fires are the result of vandalism Vs electrical faults.
That's on hell of a get out clause!
I'm also very surprised at this.I'd be interested to know just how many car fires are the result of vandalism Vs electrical faults.
That's on hell of a get out clause!
OP do you know what caused the fire exactly?
1. If you have fully comp insurance, take a corner too fast and roll your car, the insurance covers it.
2. If you park a hot car in a field of dry grass and the catalytic converter heat sets the grass on fire that then destroys the car, the insurance covers it.
3. If you have the car properly serviced as per manufacturers recommendations but something fails, you are not covered and being 5 years old the manufacturer doesnt cover it either.
I understand small print but would bet not many people on here realised that if an electrical fault caused their car to burn out, the insurance would not pay.
BTW it was not always like this. had a car at uni and the fuel hose split which resulted on petrol hitting turbo and car burning out on M5. Insurance paid out...
2. If you park a hot car in a field of dry grass and the catalytic converter heat sets the grass on fire that then destroys the car, the insurance covers it.
3. If you have the car properly serviced as per manufacturers recommendations but something fails, you are not covered and being 5 years old the manufacturer doesnt cover it either.
I understand small print but would bet not many people on here realised that if an electrical fault caused their car to burn out, the insurance would not pay.
BTW it was not always like this. had a car at uni and the fuel hose split which resulted on petrol hitting turbo and car burning out on M5. Insurance paid out...
trashbat said:
r in a different light, mechanical failure
I read somewhere that the insurer ia not liable for the part that caught on fire, which would be the responsibility of a warranty, but is liable for the consequential damage done by the fire.
^^^^ This. About 3 years ago my Triumph Vitesse had a fire caused by the alternator lunching itself and causing about £2K worth of damage, mainly wiring. Insurance company refused all liability but, after some toing and froing, this was the outcome. I paid for a new alternator, they paid the rest. I read somewhere that the insurer ia not liable for the part that caught on fire, which would be the responsibility of a warranty, but is liable for the consequential damage done by the fire.
Stonic said:
3. If you have the car properly serviced as per manufacturers recommendations but something fails, you are not covered and being 5 years old the manufacturer doesnt cover it either.
As I said before, you're rightly not covered for that something failing, but I would say you would be covered for the consequential damage. One of the insurance pros will know better.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff