Direct Line

[MoJocvh]

Just had a quote for renewal of insurance.

There was a small leaflet that advised to read the new policy documents. However there was a summary (nice of them) on the leaflet.

Now I don't want to bore the arse off you all (as you may already be aware of these) but one or two things caught my eye and basically made me sit up.

Quotes:-

we have clarified that we do not offer cover for Track days, ok no surprises there.

We have re-defined market value and added a new definition of track day.

Uh huh

THIRD PARTY LIABILITY

We have set a total limit of £20,000,000 for damage caused to property.

We will not pay legal costs if the case in question relates to parking(!), alcohol, drugs and SPEEDING.

some more stuff about only replacing a new car in it's FIRST year IF it was sourced and supplied in the UK!!!!!


Think it's time to hunt around for a different insurer.

cheers

MoJo.

[Chrisgr31]

MoJocvh said:

THIRD PARTY LIABILITY We have set a total limit of £20,000,000 for damage caused to property. We will not pay legal costs if the case in question relates to parking(!), alcohol, drugs and SPEEDING. some more stuff about only replacing a new car in it's FIRST year IF it was sourced and supplied in the UK!!!!! Think it's time to hunt around for a different insurer. cheers MoJo.

I imagine the cap on third party liability follows on from Gary Harts crash which caused a train crash. The figures the insurance company have paid out already were unbelievable! I can't recall the exact figures but seem to remember that the insurance company have already paid out over £20 million and believe they may have to pay another £12 million yet.

Irrespective of whether we pay £100 or £2,000 for our insurance you need a heck of a lot of premiums to pay that sort of claim!

I can also understand why they won't give legal assistance for speeding or parking. It is the drivers choice to park illegally or speed, and therefore they should accept the consequences. Mind you that does assume you are guilty of the offence in the firt case!

I suppose the problem is that if someone else is paying for your legal defece the temptation is to argue the case as much as possible, seek loopholes etc. Whereas a number of people would be happy to admit guilt but want legal representation to argue for a lenient sentence.

[MoJocvh]

Actually it was the SPEEDING bit that caught my eye. Can't help thinking that this is the thin edge of the wedge.

cheers

spartina.

[streaky]

This also implies that your case will not be supported if the other driver was speeding even if you weren't! - Streaky