Cat B Issues With Insurance Company
Discussion
I have been asked by a friend on another forum to help with a couple of serious issues relating to a dashboard fire in his pickup truck. He has a 2011 Ford F150 King Ranch and had an incident in November last year when smoke started pouring form the dash. He extinguished with a powder extinguisher and then a hose... Afterwards the truck was still running but messy inside. His insurer immediately said it was a write-off and arranged collection, including the V5 and keys.
Somehow it has taken until this week (over 4 months) for the insurer to reject the claim as they see no obvious cause for the fire. This gives rise to 2 major issues:
1. The insurer has used a 3rd party inspector who has concluded this. From the letter he shared the focus was on the HVAC system, as initialy diagnosed by the insurer's own engineer. They site the lack of any active components in the HVAC ducts in the area of the fire as reason for rejection. The truck has an identical dash layout to my previous F150 Raptor, including a very complex control system that includes stereo, nav, climate controls, etc. This is immediately in front of the HVAC ducts but this seems not to have been considered as a potential cause from what has been stated and the insurer is refusing to release the detailed report. I assume he now has to get his own engineer's report but it sounds like a messy fight.
2. To add insult, the insurer is telling him they are declaring the truck cat B and it needs to be destroyed. They have given him 7 days to respond and are only offer to return his truck for salvage if he has a suitable disposal licence! Can they do this when it is still his property?
The truck is at the insurer's chosen repair workshop in storage. He seemingly will have to pay to keep it there whilst he organises his own inspection, which I assume overides the deadline in point 2.
I told him he needs to get legal and find an accredited engineer ASAP to start a counter-argument. He is adamant the truck isn't too bad and just needs a new loom and ducts, though he has't seen it for months. I am aware extinguisher powder and water is a bad mix so he may have an unpleasant surprise when he goes to see it tomorrow. He has been told there has been no clean-up in all this time.
Anyone have any useful input on this please?
Somehow it has taken until this week (over 4 months) for the insurer to reject the claim as they see no obvious cause for the fire. This gives rise to 2 major issues:
1. The insurer has used a 3rd party inspector who has concluded this. From the letter he shared the focus was on the HVAC system, as initialy diagnosed by the insurer's own engineer. They site the lack of any active components in the HVAC ducts in the area of the fire as reason for rejection. The truck has an identical dash layout to my previous F150 Raptor, including a very complex control system that includes stereo, nav, climate controls, etc. This is immediately in front of the HVAC ducts but this seems not to have been considered as a potential cause from what has been stated and the insurer is refusing to release the detailed report. I assume he now has to get his own engineer's report but it sounds like a messy fight.
2. To add insult, the insurer is telling him they are declaring the truck cat B and it needs to be destroyed. They have given him 7 days to respond and are only offer to return his truck for salvage if he has a suitable disposal licence! Can they do this when it is still his property?
The truck is at the insurer's chosen repair workshop in storage. He seemingly will have to pay to keep it there whilst he organises his own inspection, which I assume overides the deadline in point 2.
I told him he needs to get legal and find an accredited engineer ASAP to start a counter-argument. He is adamant the truck isn't too bad and just needs a new loom and ducts, though he has't seen it for months. I am aware extinguisher powder and water is a bad mix so he may have an unpleasant surprise when he goes to see it tomorrow. He has been told there has been no clean-up in all this time.
Anyone have any useful input on this please?
maxc said:
Somehow it has taken until this week (over 4 months) for the insurer to reject the claim as they see no obvious cause for the fire.
I don't get it. The policy covers fire (unless he had tpo cover, in which case he wouldn't have claimed in the first place). There are some general exclusions in the policy, like war and civil commotion, and a few others. They just can't say "we're not paying because we can't find the cause of the fire." They have to say "we're not paying because the fire was caused by one of the exclusions, namely........"
Oceanrower said:
I don’t understand. Surely, if it’s a Cat B write off then the insurance company have paid out and written it off
If the insurance company haven’t paid out, how can they write it off? It’s not theirs!
IANAL, but can they write it off AND refuse to pay as the damage was not caused through an insured risk?If the insurance company haven’t paid out, how can they write it off? It’s not theirs!
havoc said:
Oceanrower said:
I don’t understand. Surely, if it’s a Cat B write off then the insurance company have paid out and written it off
If the insurance company haven’t paid out, how can they write it off? It’s not theirs!
IANAL, but can they write it off AND refuse to pay as the damage was not caused through an insured risk?If the insurance company haven’t paid out, how can they write it off? It’s not theirs!
Edited by Oceanrower on Wednesday 24th March 15:10
I strongly suspect your not getting the whole story. Insurers almost automatically write off vehicles with fire damage and they are normally Cat B, though there should be no reason for Cat B if it's only a minor dashboard fire
Saying that I wouldn't like to see the state of the truck now after sitting for a few months, I don't know the constituents of powder fire extinguishers but do know they are very corrosive and a health hazard, mixed with water it will be a right mess now that could be the reason for Cat B, but until they've decided to pay out then it's not their property to categorise
Saying that I wouldn't like to see the state of the truck now after sitting for a few months, I don't know the constituents of powder fire extinguishers but do know they are very corrosive and a health hazard, mixed with water it will be a right mess now that could be the reason for Cat B, but until they've decided to pay out then it's not their property to categorise
Every respondent, thank you for your responses. I'm dumbfounded where Bill is ending up.... I'm dealing with an 78 year old guy, not web savvy who is being bent over here…
He called me this afternoon to tell me his truck is now c. 80 miles away with a major car breaker in Westbury - not where he believed it was and originally closer to home with no indication of where his property is. He can only access via the insurer, including permissive access to photos and physical access to the vehicle – so far denied. From what I hear (and subsequential Google search) he can only accees via an accredited IAEE inspector. The insurance co seem to have assumed control of his vehicle– his property? ( already highlighted - thanks) The current storer is OK to hang on to it waiting further inquiries. (my intervention). So far th dealings on my behalf with the IAEE is a cozy club..... t
ts!
His (family ) solicitor has however been of some use – the insurance co’s threat of cat B disposal is an insurance sector Code of Conduct – basically not legally enforceable and noty enshined in law (should really have listened to an animated barriaster earlier....|) . He has demanded insurance co not to declare cat B in the meantime.
Right now I am caught in the middle, being asked to go to pick up the truck asap. I can help. though see issues..... Surely property law trumps some POS code of conduct…..
Thanks everyone so far - what would you do if your P&J burned then was tossed aside as zero value?
He called me this afternoon to tell me his truck is now c. 80 miles away with a major car breaker in Westbury - not where he believed it was and originally closer to home with no indication of where his property is. He can only access via the insurer, including permissive access to photos and physical access to the vehicle – so far denied. From what I hear (and subsequential Google search) he can only accees via an accredited IAEE inspector. The insurance co seem to have assumed control of his vehicle– his property? ( already highlighted - thanks) The current storer is OK to hang on to it waiting further inquiries. (my intervention). So far th dealings on my behalf with the IAEE is a cozy club..... t
ts!His (family ) solicitor has however been of some use – the insurance co’s threat of cat B disposal is an insurance sector Code of Conduct – basically not legally enforceable and noty enshined in law (should really have listened to an animated barriaster earlier....|) . He has demanded insurance co not to declare cat B in the meantime.
Right now I am caught in the middle, being asked to go to pick up the truck asap. I can help. though see issues..... Surely property law trumps some POS code of conduct…..
Thanks everyone so far - what would you do if your P&J burned then was tossed aside as zero value?
maxc said:
Forgot to add - Fully Com insurance. Seems like fire is not really covered. Just read my policies with AF and others – consequential damage is covered, but not the original cause. This is apparently standard wording and has severe implications as we get more complex. Beware mappimg!
That makes no sense. Can you explain what you mean by the original cause is not covered?maxc said:
Forgot to add - Fully Com insurance. Seems like fire is not really covered. Just read my policies with AF and others – consequential damage is covered, but not the original cause. This is apparently standard wording and has severe implications as we get more complex. Beware mappimg!
Are you sure about that? Where the underlying cause is a maintenance issue or some other non-insured event, it's normal for insurance not to cover the underlying problem. However if the problem subsequently causes an insured event, like an accident or a fire, that would be covered.So if your handbrake cable snaps through wear and tear, your insurance will not cover the cost of a new handbrake cable, because wear and tear isn't covered by your policy. They will, however, cover the cost of other damage done when your car collided with a wall as a result of the snapped handbrake cable. (And if it was a write-off, they could deduct the price of a handbrake cable from the settlement, if they were feeling petty).
By the same token if the fire was caused by say, a leaking fuel line, your friend wouldn't be able to claim for a new fuel line, but they should be able to claim for the fire damage (ie nearly all of the car's value).
Edited by Aretnap on Thursday 25th March 08:16
Aretnap said:
Are you sure about that? Where the underlying cause is a maintenance issue or some other non-insured event, it's normal for insurance not to cover the underlying problem. However if the problem subsequently causes an insured event, like an accident or a fire, that would be covered.
So if your handbrake cable snaps through wear and tear, your insurance will not cover the cost of a new handbrake cable, because wear and tear isn't covered by your policy. They will, however, cover the cost of other damage done when your car collided with a wall as a result of the snapped handbrake cable. (And if it was a write-off, they could deduct the price of a handbrake cable from the settlement, if they were feeling petty).
By the same token if the fire was caused by say, a leaking fuel line, your friend wouldn't be able to claim for a new fuel line, but they should be able to claim for the fire damage (ie nearly all of the car's value).
Exactly right.So if your handbrake cable snaps through wear and tear, your insurance will not cover the cost of a new handbrake cable, because wear and tear isn't covered by your policy. They will, however, cover the cost of other damage done when your car collided with a wall as a result of the snapped handbrake cable. (And if it was a write-off, they could deduct the price of a handbrake cable from the settlement, if they were feeling petty).
By the same token if the fire was caused by say, a leaking fuel line, your friend wouldn't be able to claim for a new fuel line, but they should be able to claim for the fire damage (ie nearly all of the car's value).
Edited by Aretnap on Thursday 25th March 08:16
It can be an issue if the fire started because of something like a faulty ecu module. So although the fire damage is covered, the replacement ecu until, that could cost £2K or more, isn't covered.
maxc said:
Thanks everyone so far - what would you do if your P&J burned then was tossed aside as zero value?
If it was me and the ins co have done an about turn and rejected the claim I would be demanding they return my property into my possession and then sort the rest out later.Are you sure your friend has got the full facts as somethings just don't add up.
Edited by BlackStang5point0 on Thursday 25th March 09:40
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right.
It can be an issue if the fire started because of something like a faulty ecu module. So although the fire damage is covered, the replacement ecu until, that could cost £2K or more, isn't covered.
Unless it started because of an undeclared modification.It can be an issue if the fire started because of something like a faulty ecu module. So although the fire damage is covered, the replacement ecu until, that could cost £2K or more, isn't covered.
OP - I'm assuming the truck WAS (is) standard?
havoc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right.
It can be an issue if the fire started because of something like a faulty ecu module. So although the fire damage is covered, the replacement ecu until, that could cost £2K or more, isn't covered.
Unless it started because of an undeclared modification.It can be an issue if the fire started because of something like a faulty ecu module. So although the fire damage is covered, the replacement ecu until, that could cost £2K or more, isn't covered.
OP - I'm assuming the truck WAS (is) standard?
As said, there's more to this story that we're being told.
Can I go off at a tangent. The reason the insurers would look to write the car off is the toxins acids and chemicals that are produced by a fire. They are potentially not only dangerous to the person handling it but also will have deposited on wiring and instruments and the like rendering them more likely to fail.
Sounds like a stty insurer. Do they have their own motor engineers that actually go out to view the cars. If so they usually have a sensible head on their shoulders, try to have a word. Fire is in effect a ‘peril’ of the policy and they cannot turn down the claim unless it is specifically excluded (as has been said). Threaten them with the Ombudsman as that’ll cost them hundreds alone.
Please don’t take the car back for the reasons above your health is worth more.
Sounds like a s
tty insurer. Do they have their own motor engineers that actually go out to view the cars. If so they usually have a sensible head on their shoulders, try to have a word. Fire is in effect a ‘peril’ of the policy and they cannot turn down the claim unless it is specifically excluded (as has been said). Threaten them with the Ombudsman as that’ll cost them hundreds alone.Please don’t take the car back for the reasons above your health is worth more.
I've just had a long talk with the owner and the story is very much as I've stated. The truck was totally standard and well maintained. The main issue seems to be the insurer's inspector has deemed the fire started in the HVAC ducts - but there are no active components in there so they have denied the claim based on the cause being unexplained - the letter mentions the possibility of an outside influence!
He hasn't accessed the truck yet so I haven't seen pictures and the insurer is refusing to share theirs. He told me there was minimal visible damage after the fire so the dash needs pulling apart to see what has happened. He has demanded they keep the truck secure and do not change the V5 in any way whilst he seeks assistance. His solicitor and others have advised him to ask for the insurer's complaints procedure, start the ombudsman process and also contact the insurer's CEO. He's having a call with an accredited engineer to discuss his own inspection - which the insurer is insisting is arranged through them.
With regard to getting his truck back, his solicitor advises leaving it in the insurer's care until inspection to avoid any further disputes over integrity of evidence.
I'll update when I hear more.
He hasn't accessed the truck yet so I haven't seen pictures and the insurer is refusing to share theirs. He told me there was minimal visible damage after the fire so the dash needs pulling apart to see what has happened. He has demanded they keep the truck secure and do not change the V5 in any way whilst he seeks assistance. His solicitor and others have advised him to ask for the insurer's complaints procedure, start the ombudsman process and also contact the insurer's CEO. He's having a call with an accredited engineer to discuss his own inspection - which the insurer is insisting is arranged through them.
With regard to getting his truck back, his solicitor advises leaving it in the insurer's care until inspection to avoid any further disputes over integrity of evidence.
I'll update when I hear more.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff