mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
Cheap insurance warning
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
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 11:56 AM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Myke 2463
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
Franky + 1 i thought if mot ( not on route for mot test ) or tax expired then ins void anyway.
Be Lucky Mike.
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
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.
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:05 PM |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
perksy
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
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 
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
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!
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
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!
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?
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
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?
Absolutely agree with that. But particularly with the road worthiness clause - what if after an accident they found a slightly worn track rod end? It
might have been a few months since you last checked it and it might just cause an MOT failure in a few months time. they could say it was a
contributing factor in the accident. That would seem to be a fairly minor 'infringement' to me and lets face it most drivers
wouldn't know if a fault like that existed until MOT time but it could end up ruining your whole life - possibly bankruptcy for you and the
effects it would have on your family would be far reaching. Previously the insurance companies would have taken this on the chin but not any more it
seems.
An insurance company with this clause will go over you car with a fine tooth comb and anything they can find could be used in this way.
I just don't think that this development is widely recognised for what it is and people should be aware.
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
mr_pr
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
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
.JPG)
My Build Progress
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 01:53 PM |
|
|
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.
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 02:00 PM |
|
|
Always thought these were 'normal' terms on all policies, seems sense to me.
|
|
|
macc man
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
afj
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 02:43 PM |
|
|
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). 
eerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
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] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
vanepico
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 06:30 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
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.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 09:23 PM |
|
|
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?
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
eddie99
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
As above, all sounds normal to me!
http://www.elitemotorsporteng.co.uk/
Twitter: @Elitemotoreng
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elite-Motorsport-Engineering/153409081394323
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 11:55 AM |
|
|
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
To make a car go faster, just add lightness. Colin Chapman - OR - fit a bigger engine. Chippy
|
|
|
vanepico
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
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.
Absolutely not the case unless your insurance explicitly states this. Having an MOT does not mean your car is roadworthy, and the reverse is also
true.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 02:56 PM |
|
|
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.
AFAIK insurers have always been able to claim 3rd party costs from a policy holder if they have contravened the requirements of their policy. This is
nothing new.
|
|
|
vanepico
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
