I asked my insurance broker - (who I have used for years) why he couldn't compete with compare the meerkat and go compare etc.

He said there are a couple of clauses in these 'cheap' policies which make them harder to claim on and can actually mean that the insurance doesn't cover you when you think it would. I did a bit of research and found this on a Bell (same company as Admiral and Elephant) quote.

I think these are potentially life changing (for the worse) if they were used following an accident.

so here are the clauses:


3 Care of your car
You or any person covered by the policy must:

a) protect your car from loss or damage
b) make sure your car is roadworthy
c) allow us to inspect your car at any reasonable time we ask you

If an accident happens and the condition of the vehicle caused or contributed to the accident, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting obligations as required by Road Traffic law. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to recover from you or the driver or any party responsible for the condition of the vehicle, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a judgement, of any claim arising from the accident

In other words if you crash and subsequently they find out that you had a defective tyre for instance then not only would they not insure you for the crash but they would seek to recover the cost of any third party claims (not just damage - we are talking compensation for death or injury here) which they had to pay out under their legal liability back from the you, the driver.

How many of us are sure that our cars are completely road worthy at all times? could a faulty sidelight be considered to have contributed to an accident which could leave a driver liable for huge costs?

next:


11 Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of your
current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs,
or was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, no cover under the policy will be
provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by
Road Traffic law. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to recover from you or the
driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgment,
of any claim arising from the accident.

So if you have an accident say next morning after a few tipples the night before and fail the breath test then as above - not only will you not be insured but you will be personally liable for any third party claims (such as killing or maiming someone) and paying for the rest of your life.


I could be wrong but I think these are relatively new developments in the car insurance game and I will be reading my insurance policies very carefully from now on.

You have been warned!

Have a lovely day!

Cheers

Mark

They're fairly standard I think.

Why should you be insured if you're over the limit or you've got bald tyres/knackered brakes etc?

From recent experience I would also suggest that Compare The Confused.com type quotes are actualy usualy more expensive than actualy phoning the insurance company and tellig them what you want/what you have

Franky + 1 i thought if mot ( not on route for mot test ) or tax expired then ins void anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky
They're fairly standard I think.

Why should you be insured if you're over the limit or you've got bald tyres/knackered brakes etc?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mookaloid

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky
They're fairly standard I think.

Why should you be insured if you're over the limit or you've got bald tyres/knackered brakes etc?

---

I think the point is that there is a legal requirement for car insurance for 3rd party liability and it is new that the insurance company will pursue the 'at fault' driver for any payout to a third party.

---

Problem is components can fail without much warning ie a fatigue failure
Pretty rare i'm sure but there's always a chance

How would the insurer view this one ? They'd probably be looking for a way out...

Seen a few failures on club runs ie a F27 that had a weld failure on a front wishbone
Luckily he was only doing 15 mph up to a junction and rolled to a grass verge
But at speed it could of been a real nasty one and somebody could have been coming the other way

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky

quote:

---

Originally posted by mookaloid

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky
They're fairly standard I think.

Why should you be insured if you're over the limit or you've got bald tyres/knackered brakes etc?

---

I think the point is that there is a legal requirement for car insurance for 3rd party liability and it is new that the insurance company will pursue the 'at fault' driver for any payout to a third party.

---

so they should!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mookaloid

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky

quote:

---

Originally posted by mookaloid

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky
They're fairly standard I think.

Why should you be insured if you're over the limit or you've got bald tyres/knackered brakes etc?

---

I think the point is that there is a legal requirement for car insurance for 3rd party liability and it is new that the insurance company will pursue the 'at fault' driver for any payout to a third party.

---

so they should!

---

Ok well I hope you enjoy your cheap insurance and never need it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franky


If im ever over the limit while behind the wheel I deserve all that happens, same goes for knowingly driving a defective car, you surely must think the same?

---

This is completely normal. Nothing written here is unusual for any car policy and is just legal wording for driving legally, I.E. Not over the limit, taking drugs or have an unsafe car.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mookaloid
I asked my insurance broker - (who I have used for years) why he couldn't compete with compare the meerkat and go compare etc.

He said there are a couple of clauses in these 'cheap' policies which make them harder to claim on and can actually mean that the insurance doesn't cover you when you think it would. I did a bit of research and found this on a Bell (same company as Admiral and Elephant) quote.

I think these are potentially life changing (for the worse) if they were used following an accident.

so here are the clauses:


3 Care of your car
You or any person covered by the policy must:

a) protect your car from loss or damage
b) make sure your car is roadworthy
c) allow us to inspect your car at any reasonable time we ask you

If an accident happens and the condition of the vehicle caused or contributed to the accident, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting obligations as required by Road Traffic law. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to recover from you or the driver or any party responsible for the condition of the vehicle, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a judgement, of any claim arising from the accident

In other words if you crash and subsequently they find out that you had a defective tyre for instance then not only would they not insure you for the crash but they would seek to recover the cost of any third party claims (not just damage - we are talking compensation for death or injury here) which they had to pay out under their legal liability back from the you, the driver.

How many of us are sure that our cars are completely road worthy at all times? could a faulty sidelight be considered to have contributed to an accident which could leave a driver liable for huge costs?

next:


11 Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of your
current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs,
or was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, no cover under the policy will be
provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by
Road Traffic law. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to recover from you or the
driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgment,
of any claim arising from the accident.

So if you have an accident say next morning after a few tipples the night before and fail the breath test then as above - not only will you not be insured but you will be personally liable for any third party claims (such as killing or maiming someone) and paying for the rest of your life.


I could be wrong but I think these are relatively new developments in the car insurance game and I will be reading my insurance policies very carefully from now on.

You have been warned!

Have a lovely day!

Cheers

Mark

---

There are no such clauses in my main tintop policy from Allianz by the way. The road worthiness bit says:

"You must do all you reasonably can to keep to keep it in a roadworthy condition." which is a far cry from the Bell clause.

Always thought these were 'normal' terms on all policies, seems sense to me.

This looks like a catch all exclusion which means they would be most unlikely to pay out in any circumstances. I would not buy such a policy as it could cost you dearly in the event of a claim. Looks like the scam brigade has reached the insurance industry as well.

Tbh I wouldn't worry, we recover in maybe 40 crashed cars a week and sometimes we don't see an assessor for weeks. They only inspect cars for a very few reasons eg it's a big big claim as in 100k like someone crashing into a house or a couple high value cars, you have managed to kill someone, or you yourself have said 'I crashed because the brakes didn't work ( which is code for bald tyres to the insurance co).

Those are normal standard clauses, insurance companies won't invoke clauses unless they have reason to believe the owner or driver were aware of the defect that caused the accident. As long as the driver and owner can be shown to meet reasonable obligation to only drive a vehicle which is roadworthy, ie you can't expected to be aware of a hidden tyre defect but to drive a vehicle with the brakes pulling to one side would be another matter.

However the major fly in the ointment is MOT advisories which in many cases are either just arse protecting or spurious eg Kwikfit advisories on brake pad wear.



As for the drink & drugs clauses do you really expect insurance companies to insure you for breaking the law and endangering other road users ?

[Edited on 3/3/12 by britishtrident]

I thought the whole point in there being insurance on your car was if your car had an accident, not if your car had an accident and you were drunk, I would expect a company to pay up, but increase premiums or something, insurance is insurance. Your premiums would already skyrocket because you would have to declare that you have a DUI conviction. Not that I'm condoning drink driving but the insurance is there to pay out if your car causes damage not. I never really thought of the small clauses in insurance but I think the government should probably sort these out.

Do adrian flux or the other kit car insurers have clauses like this?

oh and mookaloid where is your avatar from?!!!

[Edited on 3/3/12 by vanepico]

Im not suprised they wont cover your own losses, but it is alarming that they will wrangle their way out of the 3rd party costs. I wrote off a car with no MOT and got all my money out of them. Must read the small print, since like everyone else i go for the cheapest quote.

To be honest, driving a defective vehicle is illegal anyway like the drink driving so that small print is actually redundant as I don't think any insurance will cover you if your driving illegally.

Personally I wouldn't be too worried about it. All insurance is a scam and those terms don't sound all that harsh to me considering the legal results some people I know have experienced from crashes (Apparently you can hit a parked car at 10 mph over the speed limit and not be at fault) being told I'll be pursued for driving a defective car or drink driving seems perfectly reasonable, and besides I've got no money and don't own anything so what are they going to take?

As above, all sounds normal to me!

My grandson purchased a BMW, second car he had owned, when he got it, it was fitted with alloy wheels which he naturaly thought were OEM fitted. Had a minor shunt, and his insurance company refused to pay on the grounds he had aftermarket wheels and had not declared this on his policy. Seems to me it's any bloody reason not to pay out, as I can't see any difference what wheels are fitted as long as they are safe. Cheers Ray

And surely now that we know of this, we could be done for driving without proper 3rd party insuranc, seeing as they choose when they want to cover you or not, it seems to me the government must only want us to pay out several thousand pounds so they can claim 20% of that for the taxes, a load of bastards the lot of em!

[Edited on 4/3/12 by vanepico]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myke 2463
Franky + 1 i thought if mot ( not on route for mot test ) or tax expired then ins void anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoelP
Im not suprised they wont cover your own losses, but it is alarming that they will wrangle their way out of the 3rd party costs. I wrote off a car with no MOT and got all my money out of them. Must read the small print, since like everyone else i go for the cheapest quote.

---

Hmm, that completely defeats the point of insurance then doesn't it!

If you have to pay for the 3rd party, my £2000 a year is going down the toilet. You might aswell just not have insurance and pay it to them straight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vanepico
Hmm, that completely defeats the point of insurance then doesn't it!

If you have to pay for the 3rd party, my £2000 a year is going down the toilet. You might aswell just not have insurance and pay it to them straight.

---

in that example before about the alloy wheels, how would they prove that those are modifications or how would you prove they weren't? There is an infinite amount of things the insurance company could say is not 'safe' on your car or something else to invalidate the insurance.

I have never had to claim anything on insurance luckily but this is a bit scary that the insurance company can turn round and say "hmm that keyring on your keys has obviously caused your car to crash" and there's not a thing you can do about it.

I bet they'd claim if you'd put a cable tie to hold a wire on they'd say that was a modification if it got them out of paying up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vanepico
in that example before about the alloy wheels, how would they prove that those are modifications or how would you prove they weren't? There is an infinite amount of things the insurance company could say is not 'safe' on your car or something else to invalidate the insurance.

I have never had to claim anything on insurance luckily but this is a bit scary that the insurance company can turn round and say "hmm that keyring on your keys has obviously caused your car to crash" and there's not a thing you can do about it.

I bet they'd claim if you'd put a cable tie to hold a wire on they'd say that was a modification if it got them out of paying up.

---

Does Britain not have an effective ombudsman to fight unreasonable decisions off insurance companies like that re the wheels?

There are ways to check if something has the correct wheels but most people wouldn't bother. It has nothing to do with safety.

Someone I work withs cousin was once hit by a bus and his car had slightly unusual wheels which the insurance company for the bus (Whose fault it was, recorded by it's own camera system) claimed they didn't have to pay out because the car was modified and thus not insured. Fortunatly though the wheels were fitted ordered with the car when new, and amongst the paper work he'd gotten from the previous owners he found a reciept proving this which he had to produce before he could claim. Thats just how it works.

None of these things being moaned about are as bad as anyone is making out, if they didn't do this then more money would be spent paying for accidents caused by illegal driving, ultimatly paid by everyone who buys any form of insurance.

Some of the new cancellation refunds are also absolutely mental, Ive just dragged right choice insurance brokers (RCIB) through the ombudsman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17489887

Agrees that they have to cover third party losses by law whatever has happened, so they can only bill you if it specifically says they can.

I agree 100% that if you've dui'd you don't deserve your car fixed, but what if you hit someone else? they should definately payout then. I hope they do when I inevitably end up getting hit by a drunk driver -_-