Written Off my 458 Spider
Discussion
ingenieur said:
Sticks. said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No they won't. They will see if the OP meets the criteria for a valid claim under the terms of the contract he and the insurer have entered into. It's all there in black and white. If he hasn't fallen foul of any of exclusions on the policy, his claim will be paid. They can't "find" new things to avoid paying out.
No, but they would look for any way to reduce their liability. Take for example this standard play with a used car warranty:
1. Did the car have the fault when you bought it?
2. Yes
3. Sorry you're not covered.
The salesman would have assured the customer the car is fault free, allowed the customer to inspect or even told the customer a fault he has noticed will be fixed before the customer collects the car. Then explained as the car has a warranty they should be safe regardless and can buy with confidence. See the problem?
The OP has a contract which lists what the exclusions are and what the insurers are liable for. That's what they will stick to. They ask questions to ensure the OP has stuck to his side of the deal. If he has, the insurers will stick to theirs.
Roger Irrelevant said:
For years the FCA and/or EU have been banging on to insurers about making their T&Cs clear and easy to understand, and making rules about Key Features Documents, Insurance Product Information Documents etc. The sole purpose of these rules is to make the salient terms of insurance products (such as charges and what exactly is covered), easy to find and digest. And they are. If people are interested it is really quite easy to find this stuff but hardly anybody bothers because they think it's too much hassle - easier to just go for the cheapest and then moan when it turns out that WckdInsurez4less don't in fact offer a premium customer experience and have more carve-outs in their cover than a ku klux klan convention. Not only has the horse been led to water, it has been submerged up to its chin in a crystal clear alpine stream and offered a selection of refreshing aperitifs, yet the bugger just won't drink.
I don’t doubt the policy terms are clearer today than they were 20 years ago … and they are night a day better than big b2b insurance which loves an exclusion, extension and write back before another exclusion … but I would have to disagree that proper comparison is easy as your equine aqua imagery alludes. I would estimate it would take me 3 hours to do a basic comparison of three policy docs … and I’ve got the skills needed to do so. I just can’t be arsed. TwigtheWonderkid said:
It would take about 3 minutes to read the 3 insurers' "key facts" page.
Is this it? https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
I can’t see where OP would have learned that he wasn’t covered for this crash. Deliberate damage which includes reckless is as close as it gets. You’d need to read the policy and the detailed wording which is very different to get close.
This doesn’t help you decide between policies and it’s far from three minutes work. It’s very little use to a consumer.
BertBert said:
I'll do it in 2! Seriously they are quite ready to read. But as the OP had understandably give AWOL, we'll never know what exclusions his policy has.
Bert, he said he had an admiral policy. Just google it and read it.. pdf available online. . That’s where the market value section I quoted came from. Took me less than two minutes.
Detracting from the original post -
For those of you who are saying that car insurance documents are clear and easy to read,
Hastings offers 3 levels of insurance: Essential, Direct, and Premier.
If you have 2 or 3 minutes to spare, would you like to list the differences between the policies ?
For those of you who are saying that car insurance documents are clear and easy to read,
Hastings offers 3 levels of insurance: Essential, Direct, and Premier.
If you have 2 or 3 minutes to spare, would you like to list the differences between the policies ?
I've not been able to see a post setting out the actual wording of the exclusion clause in the OP's policy, which seems to be a crucial factor.
The starting point is that his insurers have contracted to indemnify him in respect of loss. Having suffered a loss there is an implied obligation in the insurance contract to settle the claim within a reasonable time.
I don't see that 12 - 16 weeks is anything like a reasonable time.
In any case, if, as he says, they won't pay if he's prosecuted for drink / dangerous driving that seems grossly unfair. Being prosecuted doesn't mean being convicted, but in theory the insurers could continue to refuse payment until he was acquitted at trial, which could be several months down the line. I can't see how such a strategy could possibly be compliant with their contractual duties.
So if the OP's still reading the thread please post a copy of the relevant exclusion clause, so we can see what their actual argument is.
Just another thought - did the car contain an Event Data Recorder? If so, that may reveal the speed at which the car was travelling at the time of the accident, and help to resolve the issue (though I suspect the OP may not be enthusiastic about such data being recovered!).
The starting point is that his insurers have contracted to indemnify him in respect of loss. Having suffered a loss there is an implied obligation in the insurance contract to settle the claim within a reasonable time.
I don't see that 12 - 16 weeks is anything like a reasonable time.
In any case, if, as he says, they won't pay if he's prosecuted for drink / dangerous driving that seems grossly unfair. Being prosecuted doesn't mean being convicted, but in theory the insurers could continue to refuse payment until he was acquitted at trial, which could be several months down the line. I can't see how such a strategy could possibly be compliant with their contractual duties.
So if the OP's still reading the thread please post a copy of the relevant exclusion clause, so we can see what their actual argument is.
Just another thought - did the car contain an Event Data Recorder? If so, that may reveal the speed at which the car was travelling at the time of the accident, and help to resolve the issue (though I suspect the OP may not be enthusiastic about such data being recovered!).
rayny said:
Detracting from the original post -
For those of you who are saying that car insurance documents are clear and easy to read,
Hastings offers 3 levels of insurance: Essential, Direct, and Premier.
If you have 2 or 3 minutes to spare, would you like to list the differences between the policies ?
Just spent 30 secs looking at Hastings car insurance home page and the difference between the 3 levels of insurance are clearly explained.For those of you who are saying that car insurance documents are clear and easy to read,
Hastings offers 3 levels of insurance: Essential, Direct, and Premier.
If you have 2 or 3 minutes to spare, would you like to list the differences between the policies ?
Not going to waste my time listing the differences, it looks clear enough to me.
Austin_Metro said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It would take about 3 minutes to read the 3 insurers' "key facts" page.
Is this it? https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
I can’t see where OP would have learned that he wasn’t covered for this crash. Deliberate damage which includes reckless is as close as it gets.
Has the OP done what was advised on page one and first page of the previous deleted thread? That is, raise a formal complaint with the insurer, let it reach its conclusion and then go to the Ombudsman if he is unhappy.
Everything else is froth until the insurer makes their next move. 16 weeks is a long time to settle the claim and I can see that the insurer might have some difficulty in justifying that, but all you can hope for is that the complaint will encourage them to get on with it. Raising a complaint now at least starts another clock ticking which will ultimately open up another route for the OP. It has no risk and doing nothing is daft.
All the stuff about valuation has been well covered here and everywhere else. It's fairly normal horse trading with insurers albeit on a bigger scale and again the Ombudsman route remains open IF the OP has initiated the complaints process.
I suspect that the size of this claim has meant it's being dealt with by a dedicated claims handler and it will attract more scrutiny than a typical small claim. That's what's behind the slow progress so kick them up the backside with the complaint now.
Everything else is froth until the insurer makes their next move. 16 weeks is a long time to settle the claim and I can see that the insurer might have some difficulty in justifying that, but all you can hope for is that the complaint will encourage them to get on with it. Raising a complaint now at least starts another clock ticking which will ultimately open up another route for the OP. It has no risk and doing nothing is daft.
All the stuff about valuation has been well covered here and everywhere else. It's fairly normal horse trading with insurers albeit on a bigger scale and again the Ombudsman route remains open IF the OP has initiated the complaints process.
I suspect that the size of this claim has meant it's being dealt with by a dedicated claims handler and it will attract more scrutiny than a typical small claim. That's what's behind the slow progress so kick them up the backside with the complaint now.
Austin_Metro said:
Bert, he said he had an admiral policy. Just google it and read it.. pdf available online. . That’s where the market value section I quoted came from.
Took me less than two minutes.
Do you know it's the insurance that the OP had? Even with the right company they may well have different instance products.Took me less than two minutes.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Took me about 10 seconds to get to that bit on the exclusions, and to decide that's not the firm I'd use to insure my Ferrari 458.
Of course it did. So in the other 2 mins 50s can you now comment on two other policy key facts documents and check the underlying exclusion clause (as the key facts documents is merely a summary) to show us a better policy for his Ferrari? BertBert said:
Do you know it's the insurance that the OP had? Even with the right company they may well have different instance products.
No. But it’s the only info we have. https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
This appears to be the current policy doc for all their levels of insurance.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Austin_Metro said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It would take about 3 minutes to read the 3 insurers' "key facts" page.
Is this it? https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
I can’t see where OP would have learned that he wasn’t covered for this crash. Deliberate damage which includes reckless is as close as it gets.
slow ginn said:
Monkeylegend said:
A collision would have worked out better from an insurance point of view, but at least you avoided the possibility of injuries to the other driver by driving off road.
Yes that seems to be the caseDriving along at 40 in a 40 limit, saw a car in a side road ahead on the left, noticed the driver was looking left, ie away from me.
When I was 5 yards away from me he suddenly pulled out to turn right, ie towards me, without checking back to his right again.
I saw the look of fear on his face, braked hard and did the only think my instincts allowed in the time.
I swerved left into the space he had vacated and trashed my front suspension on the high kerb.
He got out and apologised, we swapped details. Ditto with witnesses.
A couple of months later I checked on the progress of my claim, to be told it was my fault.
By the time he had reluctantly reported the accident to his boss (company car) the blame had shifted somewhat.
The witnesses were the only thing that won me the case.
Austin_Metro said:
BertBert said:
Do you know it's the insurance that the OP had? Even with the right company they may well have different instance products.
No. But it’s the only info we have. https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
This appears to be the current policy doc for all their levels of insurance.
BertBert said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Austin_Metro said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It would take about 3 minutes to read the 3 insurers' "key facts" page.
Is this it? https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
I can’t see where OP would have learned that he wasn’t covered for this crash. Deliberate damage which includes reckless is as close as it gets.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't like the bit about not being covered for "deliberate or reckless actions". Too vague. I want hard and fast rules. No cover if over the drink drive limit. Fine. No cover if convicted for dangerous driving as a result of the accident, fine. But their wording.....You deliberately went into that corner too fast, you were reckless (in our opinion) driving in a particular manner (not backed up by any conviction).
Thanks and agreed Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff