Shocking case of claim refusal
Discussion
Not a situation involving me or anyone I know personally, but still find this story pretty horrendous:
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-denied-car-in...
What's the likelihood this will get overturned, once the local MP starts taking an interest?
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-denied-car-in...
What's the likelihood this will get overturned, once the local MP starts taking an interest?
I struggle to see what "conspiracy" might exist between Allianz and the FOS.
Or what proof the guy wants that Allianz don't insure modified vehicles other than them saying they don't?
So that smells a bit desperate.
The fos could perhaps be clearer about how they satisfied themselves of this fact (which is pretty crucial) and why the disagreed with the original finding by an assessor (the article isn't clear about the assessor's status).
But ultimately this article highlights the vast gulf between a trivial disclosure error and the ramifications of getting insurance refused in a big smash.
The article says costs of £100,000 which most reasonable people would say is utterly unaffordable. And the accident didn't even involve a towbar or towing anyway? So a keen eyed insurance assessor spotted the towbar socket and wiring and cross checked it against factor spec, which I assume was only done on the grounds to try and refuse the claim.
Ultimately the driver/cyclist who drives make an admin mistake that will now cost them £100,000. That seems harsh enough to be an unjust outcome even if procedurally it's correct.
There's judgement about whether the mistake was honest, or deliberate, but it sounds honest. Should an honest mistake cost someone this much? Do they in other situations?
It's not like the guy modded his engine then lost control for example, or tinted his windows and had an accident due to poor visibility, or was towing something and the trailer came loose hitting a school bus etc.
But the insurance industry has reduced itself to a denominator of "computer says no" / how can we avoid a claim rather than saying "the guy paid a premium in good faith, the mod (probably) wouldn't have affected the premium much anyway, and as the modification had no bearing on what the liability would be".
If allianz weren't adamant they don't insure modified cars, then the remedy would be to simply charge the premium including a towbar.
It seems strange to an outsider how insurance companies can be so compartmentalised like this yet offer virtually identical services and similar prices from the outside. I've had underwriters change from year to year due to some arbitrary reason so it makes me wonder if the boss wakes up one day and think "I don't like red cars anymore - no more insuring red cars".
Also I wonder if the mib will cover it? Though I think they only cover instances where the third party is unidentified, not necessarily uninsured.
Or what proof the guy wants that Allianz don't insure modified vehicles other than them saying they don't?
So that smells a bit desperate.
The fos could perhaps be clearer about how they satisfied themselves of this fact (which is pretty crucial) and why the disagreed with the original finding by an assessor (the article isn't clear about the assessor's status).
But ultimately this article highlights the vast gulf between a trivial disclosure error and the ramifications of getting insurance refused in a big smash.
The article says costs of £100,000 which most reasonable people would say is utterly unaffordable. And the accident didn't even involve a towbar or towing anyway? So a keen eyed insurance assessor spotted the towbar socket and wiring and cross checked it against factor spec, which I assume was only done on the grounds to try and refuse the claim.
Ultimately the driver/cyclist who drives make an admin mistake that will now cost them £100,000. That seems harsh enough to be an unjust outcome even if procedurally it's correct.
There's judgement about whether the mistake was honest, or deliberate, but it sounds honest. Should an honest mistake cost someone this much? Do they in other situations?
It's not like the guy modded his engine then lost control for example, or tinted his windows and had an accident due to poor visibility, or was towing something and the trailer came loose hitting a school bus etc.
But the insurance industry has reduced itself to a denominator of "computer says no" / how can we avoid a claim rather than saying "the guy paid a premium in good faith, the mod (probably) wouldn't have affected the premium much anyway, and as the modification had no bearing on what the liability would be".
If allianz weren't adamant they don't insure modified cars, then the remedy would be to simply charge the premium including a towbar.
It seems strange to an outsider how insurance companies can be so compartmentalised like this yet offer virtually identical services and similar prices from the outside. I've had underwriters change from year to year due to some arbitrary reason so it makes me wonder if the boss wakes up one day and think "I don't like red cars anymore - no more insuring red cars".
Also I wonder if the mib will cover it? Though I think they only cover instances where the third party is unidentified, not necessarily uninsured.
Super Sonic said:
If it's removable and wasn't fitted when the claim was made I would say it doesn't count as modified.
I’m not sure that’s correct. Doesn’t the removable part normally attach to another part that permanently fixed to the car, in other words isn’t a removable tow bar a two piece device? In any case, of course it’s a modification, and an insurance company would treat it as such presumably because it puts an additional load on a vehicle that it wouldn’t normally be subject to (if it was towing), and would also affect the handling characteristics of that vehicle (if it was towing), so the insurance company would presumably need to take that into account when assessing the risk they were going to cover.
Antony Moxey said:
Super Sonic said:
If it's removable and wasn't fitted when the claim was made I would say it doesn't count as modified.
I’m not sure that’s correct. Doesn’t the removable part normally attach to another part that permanently fixed to the car, in other words isn’t a removable tow bar a two piece device? In any case, of course it’s a modification, and an insurance company would treat it as such presumably because it puts an additional load on a vehicle that it wouldn’t normally be subject to (if it was towing), and would also affect the handling characteristics of that vehicle (if it was towing), so the insurance company would presumably need to take that into account when assessing the risk they were going to cover.There will be a big thick bar behind the bumper which the socket slots into, along with wiring modifications
So it is a mod over factory specification, despite some cars having them as factory options.
I agree about the stupidness of insurance companies al being slightly different, but isn't that a bit like crisps?
There's types for everyone, and I don't want to have to eat generic communist type one flavor doesn't quote fit all crisps for ever.
(Though eating crisps isn't required by law, unlike motor insurance)
I have always declared my towbars, i dont know why you wouldn't, its a modification. Full stop end of story.
Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Edited by OldGermanHeaps on Monday 9th December 19:31
I have little sympathy as in my experience insurers do list them as a modification and it’s difficult to argue that they aren’t. Even with a detachable towbar a considerable chunk of it is still left permanent attached to the car when the ball is removed.
I’ve two cars with tow bars, one detachable and one fixed and have always declared them as a modification, in neither case do they affect the premium.
I’ve two cars with tow bars, one detachable and one fixed and have always declared them as a modification, in neither case do they affect the premium.
OldGermanHeaps said:
I have always declared my towbars, i dont know why you wouldn't, its a modification. Full stop end of story.
Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Took longer than I expected. Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Edited by OldGermanHeaps on Monday 9th December 19:31
tbox industryOldGermanHeaps said:
I have always declared my towbars, i dont know why you wouldn't, its a modification. Full stop end of story.
Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Wow.Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Edited by OldGermanHeaps on Monday 9th December 19:31
OldGermanHeaps said:
I have always declared my towbars, i dont know why you wouldn't, its a modification. Full stop end of story.
Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Not sure if serious. Cyclists fault as usual.
Quite a surprise that a cyclist would have an entitled attitude and be deeply shocked that the rules and norms and etiquette that apply to everyone else might also apply to them.
Edited by OldGermanHeaps on Monday 9th December 19:31
Keen cyclist here and declared my 928 and S7 X pipes and even the little carbon spoiler of my Guilia Veloce.
Hugo Stiglitz v2 said:
What if he reversed his car and the rack damaged the rear of the car or a parked vehicle?
What if the amended electrics for the lighting board sparked a fire?
It's a mod.
What if the accident was nothing to do with the mod? For example, there was a towbar but he drove into a wall and bent the front? To void the insurance then is no more than 'because we can'. Parts of the corporate world use trickery to profit. What if the amended electrics for the lighting board sparked a fire?
It's a mod.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff