Insurance help needed
Author
Discussion

fistofsteel

Original Poster:

61 posts

172 months

Tuesday 25th September 2012
quotequote all
For reasons best known to herself, my wife has decided to wipe the snout of her range rover all down the side of my old (but tidy, until last week) 528i. Both cars insured fully comp. Her insurer has admitted liability and agreed with the go-ahead for the range rover repair, however they phoned today to say that they are not liable for my car as my name is on the V5 of both vehicles. When pressed they said that it was because I have a financial interest in both vehicles, my response was that would be the case irrespective of whose name was on either V5, since we are married. My broker thinks that they are talking nonsense but cannot take up the cudgels for me unless I start a claim with my own insurer, which will almost certainly affect my no claims. The insurance company has agreed to refer the case a little further up the food chain, but I do not anticipate any change of sentiment. I could understand it if they said they would refuse the claim altogether as she is not on the V5, but they have already accepted responsibility for her car.

I guess this is headed for the ombudsman, unless anyone on here has any wise words. Help?!

Pcot

863 posts

210 months

Tuesday 25th September 2012
quotequote all
Interesting.
A few years ago, i drove MY car, into My van outside my house, (in 6" of snow i hasten to add).

Both V5's in my name, both insured with separate company's.

I claimed off my car policy to have both vehicles repaired, without a problem.

fistofsteel

Original Poster:

61 posts

172 months

Wednesday 26th September 2012
quotequote all
Bump.

They reckon that had she hit a gatepost then we would not be able to claim for it as she would have a financial interest in the gatepost. Then they have substituted 'my car' for 'gatepost' and got the same result. Also definitely a different underwriter for both insurance policies. I've said to them today that if she was not covered for accidents involving vehicles of immediate family members then this should be an exclusion on the policy documents, which it is not. Crooks.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

205 months

Wednesday 26th September 2012
quotequote all
The insurers are correct. You are effectively suing yourself for damage you caused to yourself. However, the fact your wife did it does make it the connection a little more tenuous.

I'd expect them to pay out in the end.