Claiming off a motor trader
Discussion
I had my car washed at a franchise operation in a supermarket yesterday while shopping.
Unfortunately, when being moved between valet bays, the operator drove the car into the back of another car, causing some fairly extensive damage.
My own insurer is saying that, because the valeter isn't named on my policy, I am not covered - even though they say that:
The body shop is pushing accident management and credit hire, even though I am not impecunious.
Do I have any other options, other than paying and claiming back (£3k?), if necessary by issuing proceedings? How would anyone else handle this (Loon?)
Unfortunately, when being moved between valet bays, the operator drove the car into the back of another car, causing some fairly extensive damage.
My own insurer is saying that, because the valeter isn't named on my policy, I am not covered - even though they say that:
My insurance policy said:
We will not withdraw this cover,
a. While your car is in the custody or control of:
i. A member of the motor trade for the purposes of maintenance or repair; or
ii. An employee of a hotel or restaurant or car parking service.
Meanwhile the valeter hasn't raised a claim and the trade insurer won't deal with me directly (I know who they are).a. While your car is in the custody or control of:
i. A member of the motor trade for the purposes of maintenance or repair; or
ii. An employee of a hotel or restaurant or car parking service.
The body shop is pushing accident management and credit hire, even though I am not impecunious.
Do I have any other options, other than paying and claiming back (£3k?), if necessary by issuing proceedings? How would anyone else handle this (Loon?)
Credit Hire is not an option for you at all. It was your car that caused the damage. Maybe not you, but definitely your car. For the record impecuniosity comes after need. If you're a trader you're going to struggle to convince a court that you need to hire a car.
In fact I'd start to wonder if you're insured at all. You say you're covered under a Traders policy yet refer to this as "my car". Most trade policies exclude your own personal
Vehicles and only cover vehicles in stock for sale and when bein used on the road in the pursuit of trade activities.
Reality is that you're either claiming off his policy, or nobody's. Yours quite clearly doesn't cover this loss based on what you've posted.
In fact I'd start to wonder if you're insured at all. You say you're covered under a Traders policy yet refer to this as "my car". Most trade policies exclude your own personal
Vehicles and only cover vehicles in stock for sale and when bein used on the road in the pursuit of trade activities.
Reality is that you're either claiming off his policy, or nobody's. Yours quite clearly doesn't cover this loss based on what you've posted.
Loon:
Thanks for this.
I will break it down because I wasn't clear enough.
I am a customer - not a trader. My car is insured under a standard motor lines policy.
The motor lines policy includes wording that says it is insured when being driven by a member of the motor trade (i.e., someone holding trade cover) for the purposes of maintenance or repair.
There is a separate trade policy that covers the use by the valeter.
I agree that I am not a 'third party' claimant under my own insurance - but why would I not be a third party claimant under the trader's policy? Presumably car hire would fall under recoverable special losses.
I do need a replacement car: I am not a trader, I don't have access to another car (except for being a named driver on my Mum's, and she needs that, plus she lives 170 miles from me), and my car is driveable but not roadworthy.
As my insurer is now dealing, is this not basically a straightforward third party claim except that there is no third party insurer on the vehicle, or have I missed something? The claim is after all in negligence and cars can't be negligent, only drivers (and vicariously, their employers).
Edit: when I posted the last post, the reply box had been open for a while and I hadn't seen Loon's first answer, although I still don't fully understand it. Either way, whether or not I'm entitled to it, I don't need it.
Thanks for this.
I will break it down because I wasn't clear enough.
I am a customer - not a trader. My car is insured under a standard motor lines policy.
The motor lines policy includes wording that says it is insured when being driven by a member of the motor trade (i.e., someone holding trade cover) for the purposes of maintenance or repair.
There is a separate trade policy that covers the use by the valeter.
I agree that I am not a 'third party' claimant under my own insurance - but why would I not be a third party claimant under the trader's policy? Presumably car hire would fall under recoverable special losses.
I do need a replacement car: I am not a trader, I don't have access to another car (except for being a named driver on my Mum's, and she needs that, plus she lives 170 miles from me), and my car is driveable but not roadworthy.
As my insurer is now dealing, is this not basically a straightforward third party claim except that there is no third party insurer on the vehicle, or have I missed something? The claim is after all in negligence and cars can't be negligent, only drivers (and vicariously, their employers).
Edit: when I posted the last post, the reply box had been open for a while and I hadn't seen Loon's first answer, although I still don't fully understand it. Either way, whether or not I'm entitled to it, I don't need it.
Right. I sort of get it now. You're insured in a Personal Lines policy. You think the traders policy should cover it.
I'm still confused though. Your insurer has now happened to find the valeter's policy and logged a claim against it on your say so. Interesting.
Also your use of "impecunious" and "drive able, but not roadworthy" smacks of someone with sufficient knowledge to work this out for themselves.
I'm still confused though. Your insurer has now happened to find the valeter's policy and logged a claim against it on your say so. Interesting.
Also your use of "impecunious" and "drive able, but not roadworthy" smacks of someone with sufficient knowledge to work this out for themselves.
Not quite - my insurer has asked for the policy details, which the valeter provided to me. They are proceeding on the basis of a claim against my own policy, which they will then look to recover from the trader. Clearly they can't look up the other car on MID (as there is no other car at fault) but I did get documentation at the scene.
They're also going off the valeter's signed statement and accident report (intended for internal use), which they disclosed to me at the scene. I know I'm fantastically lucky to have that, but I do.
And yes, I do know (or think I know) quite a lot - but there's no harm in a second opinion because, while I could handle this to its conclusion comfortably, I'd rather not have to.
They're also going off the valeter's signed statement and accident report (intended for internal use), which they disclosed to me at the scene. I know I'm fantastically lucky to have that, but I do.
And yes, I do know (or think I know) quite a lot - but there's no harm in a second opinion because, while I could handle this to its conclusion comfortably, I'd rather not have to.
CYMR0 said:
Not quite - my insurer has asked for the policy details, which the valeter provided to me. They are proceeding on the basis of a claim against my own policy, which they will then look to recover from the trader. Clearly they can't look up the other car on MID (as there is no other car at fault) but I did get documentation at the scene.
They're also going off the valeter's signed statement and accident report (intended for internal use), which they disclosed to me at the scene. I know I'm fantastically lucky to have that, but I do.
And yes, I do know (or think I know) quite a lot - but there's no harm in a second opinion because, while I could handle this to its conclusion comfortably, I'd rather not have to.
If the valeter has claimed on his policy then it's as simple as getting them to provide you with a hire car (at zero risk to you bad it's not on credit) and then to pay your choice of repairer directly without any need for you to pay your excess. They're also going off the valeter's signed statement and accident report (intended for internal use), which they disclosed to me at the scene. I know I'm fantastically lucky to have that, but I do.
And yes, I do know (or think I know) quite a lot - but there's no harm in a second opinion because, while I could handle this to its conclusion comfortably, I'd rather not have to.
No need for Credit Hire or an AMC.
Agreed - I'd love for that to happen.
The valeter has filled in the internal forms and given me the policy details, but has not yet notified a claim as they have to go through multiple levels of escalation from licensee (site operator) through to area manager to ... whomever, who doesn't seem particularly motivated. So it'll progress as a claim against my own policy, with no credit hire - which is what the body shop wanted me to do.
The valeter has filled in the internal forms and given me the policy details, but has not yet notified a claim as they have to go through multiple levels of escalation from licensee (site operator) through to area manager to ... whomever, who doesn't seem particularly motivated. So it'll progress as a claim against my own policy, with no credit hire - which is what the body shop wanted me to do.
LoonR1 said:
Don't start stalking me, just because you're incapable of understanding that CIE is not new.
Ha, ha. Please if I was stalking you you would have by now picked up your step on dark nights (just to clarify - humour). This is Pistonheads so we will always both be 'monitoring'. Noticed any harassment or intimidation, if so please elaborate?With reference to "new", have a look at my reply and maybe you will reconsider your statement (quoted above). Do not worry I do not hold out much hope.
Autism comes in a broad spectrum.
Pip
Edited by Pip1968 on Monday 13th April 14:01
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Interesting that your own policy is restricted driving plus any member of the motor trade, but they don't class car valeters as members of the motor trade. Sounds very harsh to me. I'd be back on to them complaining about that.
I don't think that was the issue when they initially denied cover; the original issue was simply that the person driving wasn't named under the policy at all. Whether he'd been a mechanic, valeter or whatever wouldn't have made a difference.Thankfully, that was a mistake and they called to correct while I was on hold to them asking them to review their position in the light of the policy wording.
The car valeter is covered by a trade policy and therefore they are treating it as an event covered under my own policy (named driver + trade) with a view to making a third-party recovery off that trade policy.
CYMR0 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Interesting that your own policy is restricted driving plus any member of the motor trade, but they don't class car valeters as members of the motor trade. Sounds very harsh to me. I'd be back on to them complaining about that.
I don't think that was the issue when they initially denied cover; the original issue was simply that the person driving wasn't named under the policy at all. Whether he'd been a mechanic, valeter or whatever wouldn't have made a difference.Thankfully, that was a mistake and they called to correct while I was on hold to them asking them to review their position in the light of the policy wording.
The car valeter is covered by a trade policy and therefore they are treating it as an event covered under my own policy (named driver + trade) with a view to making a third-party recovery off that trade policy.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff