Written Off my 458 Spider
Discussion
BertBert said:
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 But Admiral are not a decent insurer, imho. Hence they use terms like deliberate and reckless. Those are just a matter of opinion....and it's their opinion, not yours.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A decent insurer will offer a policy where the Ts & Cs are definitive. You do this or you do that, you won't be covered. It should avoid terms like occasional, regular, emergency etc, because these are variable depending on your viewpoint.
But Admiral are not a decent insurer, imho. Hence they use terms like deliberate and reckless. Those are just a matter of opinion....and it's their opinion, not yours.
Those phrases are in the key facts document - you’d need to look in the actual contract of insurance to see how they are used and in what exact context. Ie the policy. But Admiral are not a decent insurer, imho. Hence they use terms like deliberate and reckless. Those are just a matter of opinion....and it's their opinion, not yours.
The interpretation of them, the meaning, is the regular English meaning of the words used. Not the insurer’s opinion of it. … unless they are a defined term, when you need to check the definition. Usually capitalised words.
ingenieur said:
FatboyKim said:
One useful post on the first page -- ultimately, contact a solicitor. Then subsequent 9 pages (and counting) of waffle and armchair experts. I've got the gist of this site after just a few short months, and all too often threads simply descend into a toxic cesspit of egos and b!tchy individuals who know nothing of the subject on which they vent off about. It's embarrassing.
So you think anybody who has been on this site for a long time is stupid? Austin_Metro said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A decent insurer will offer a policy where the Ts & Cs are definitive. You do this or you do that, you won't be covered. It should avoid terms like occasional, regular, emergency etc, because these are variable depending on your viewpoint.
But Admiral are not a decent insurer, imho. Hence they use terms like deliberate and reckless. Those are just a matter of opinion....and it's their opinion, not yours.
Those phrases are in the key facts document - you’d need to look in the actual contract of insurance to see how they are used and in what exact context. Ie the policy. But Admiral are not a decent insurer, imho. Hence they use terms like deliberate and reckless. Those are just a matter of opinion....and it's their opinion, not yours.
The interpretation of them, the meaning, is the regular English meaning of the words used. Not the insurer’s opinion of it. … unless they are a defined term, when you need to check the definition. Usually capitalised words.
Monkeylegend said:
Austin, you sound like you work in insurance, unlike Twig who is retired. I mean what does he know about insurance
Twig knows a lot and I respect his view. I don’t work in insurance but I do get to read their work from time to time and discuss what it means . I wouldn’t want people thinking the insurer’s interpretation is correct or binding. I also have negotiated total losses with the insurer mentioned in this thread and Twig is right, you get what you pay for. One small example: if your car has ever had an MOT fail (historically) they will suggest that you don’t maintain it and the pay out should be less. Even if your car has been maintained regardless of cost.
My issue, as mentioned up thread, is how do you know if you pay more for another policy that you will actually be treated better. The key facts document doesn’t tell you.
Monkeylegend said:
Austin, you sound like you work in insurance, unlike Twig who is retired. I mean what does he know about insurance
It isn't insurance specifically it is about how the courts interpret contracts. Words like "reasonable" "reckless" may be defined in the contract but if they are not then if the parties can't agree on the claim they go to court and ask the court to rule on what it means. All depends how much money is at stake and how emotional the parties are.Why in my job it is occasionally very important to get the word "reasonable" added to a contract during negotiations. What you avoid is when something is at the other parties "sole discretion" since if it is you are stuffed when it happens and you have no right of challenge.
IANAL
Austin_Metro said:
The interpretation of them, the meaning, is the regular English meaning of the words used. Not the insurer’s opinion of it.
What's the definition of occasional, compared to frequent. A headache once a year is an occasional headache. You wouldn't say that you get frequent headaches if you got one once a year. A comet appearing once a year would be frequent, not occasional. A comet every 500 years is occasional. So that tells me you cannot define those 2 words by time, because once a year can be very occasional or incredibly frequent, depending on the event.
So no matter how you dress it up, it's a matter of opinion, to be decided after the claim, by the insurer. So I don't want a policy that says "we will cover your car abroad providing you only go occasionally". I want a policy that says "we allow 60 days a year foreign use". That way, you know where you stand.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What's the definition of occasional, compared to frequent. A headache once a year is an occasional headache. You wouldn't say that you get frequent headaches if you got one once a year. A comet appearing once a year would be frequent, not occasional. A comet every 500 years is occasional.
So that tells me you cannot define those 2 words by time, because once a year can be very occasional or incredibly frequent, depending on the event.
So no matter how you dress it up, it's a matter of opinion, to be decided after the claim, by the insurer. So I don't want a policy that says "we will cover your car abroad providing you only go occasionally". I want a policy that says "we allow 60 days a year foreign use". That way, you know where you stand.
I agree, but are there cases where it is hard to get that specific. For example this definition:So that tells me you cannot define those 2 words by time, because once a year can be very occasional or incredibly frequent, depending on the event.
So no matter how you dress it up, it's a matter of opinion, to be decided after the claim, by the insurer. So I don't want a policy that says "we will cover your car abroad providing you only go occasionally". I want a policy that says "we allow 60 days a year foreign use". That way, you know where you stand.
"Safety-critical software - Software updates which, if not installed, would mean it was unsafe to use your vehicle
without the updates being installed"
"unsafe" falls into the same category. Perhaps more specific to say "where the manufacturer has declared the software update to be safety critical"? Very interesting!
By my reading of this, op too avoiding action and did not hit the other car. Thus no damage, and is there an actual claim against other car. Consequential liability, yes, but under the insurance I suspect this is a fault claim for op without doubt.
The fact insurers waiting for police is a concern, as not relevent in my view (as not under influence etc.). Cheap insurance is great until there’s a claim.
The fact insurers waiting for police is a concern, as not relevent in my view (as not under influence etc.). Cheap insurance is great until there’s a claim.
jwo said:
By my reading of this, op too avoiding action and did not hit the other car. Thus no damage, and is there an actual claim against other car. Consequential liability, yes, but under the insurance I suspect this is a fault claim for op without doubt.
The fact insurers waiting for police is a concern, as not relevent in my view (as not under influence etc.). Cheap insurance is great until there’s a claim.
There doesn't have to be damage, or even contact, for someone to be the cause of an accident.The fact insurers waiting for police is a concern, as not relevent in my view (as not under influence etc.). Cheap insurance is great until there’s a claim.
jwo said:
By my reading of this, op too avoiding action and did not hit the other car. Thus no damage, and is there an actual claim against other car. Consequential liability, yes, but under the insurance I suspect this is a fault claim for op without doubt.
The fact insurers waiting for police is a concern, as not relevent in my view (as not under influence etc.). Cheap insurance is great until there’s a claim.
The question is whether the insurer is holding up the settling of the claim whilst establishing blame/liability or other reasons.The fact insurers waiting for police is a concern, as not relevent in my view (as not under influence etc.). Cheap insurance is great until there’s a claim.
One thing that strikes me is that the OP mentioned drink driving and dangerous driving - both "DD"? Some confusion there maybe.
It's a natural instinct not to want to crash into a car suddenly immediately in front of you.
I know I swerve in such a suituation.
I did when I wrote my first Mini off up the back corner of a reversing Ferrari. I wouild have hit it head on otherwise.
I did in the incident I mentioned above.
I did when a car suddenly swerved across onto my side of the road, both of us doing 60.
I missed the other car (driver head down, texting), but ended up upside down in the ditch,
Perhaps it's time I hit something head on?
I know I swerve in such a suituation.
I did when I wrote my first Mini off up the back corner of a reversing Ferrari. I wouild have hit it head on otherwise.
I did in the incident I mentioned above.
I did when a car suddenly swerved across onto my side of the road, both of us doing 60.
I missed the other car (driver head down, texting), but ended up upside down in the ditch,
Perhaps it's time I hit something head on?
Yellow Lizud said:
There doesn't have to be damage, or even contact, for someone to be the cause of an accident.
True, but it's incredibly difficult to claim off someone who wasn't involved in the resultant collision. Your only hope is either a confession of guilt by the driver of the undamaged car, or dashcam footage. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff