Flood damaged motor vehicles.

[LamieRobertson]

What should happen is your son makes a claim under his own policy and his insurer will, in turn, attempt to make a recovery from the other diver's insurer. When [if] they get all the money they paid out back, they would refund your son's excess and mark the claim as 'non-fault' (see previous post about having lots of non-fault claims).

If the other insurer disputes liability either completely... "it wasn't our customer"... or claims 'contributory negligence'... "he parked like a tw*t and our client did everything he could but couldn't avoid an accident"... then they might not get all the money back and so the claim stays as 'fault', your son never gets his excess back and, possibly, loses no claims discount.

Emails are very easy to fake and so carry very little weight in the negotiations between insurers (because they hold very little weight in court), so without an actual witness, it is very difficult for your son's insurer to force the driver's insurer to admit liability (even though the driver has!). The only thing that will carry weight is if the driver admitted liability on a claim form (if one was ever completed) or in a phone conversation with either insurer (which will have been recorded).

Re emails...do you mean easy to fake as in producing a copy? What if the original is sat on my email system....surely that's hard to fake?

 

[Since1982]

I can only assume that the company you work for is one that looks to decline as many claims as possible as opposed to one that treats customers fairly. On the basis that you will look to decline all claims where vehicles are damaged by flood on the basis that the vehicle has not been moved to higher ground is just plain daft.

I would expect that the first complaint you receive that is referred to the FOS will be lost, as they will not see the policyholders action as unreasonable in not moving the vehicle. The contract of insurance will say that you will pay for loss of or damage to the vehicle, rather than looking to decline reasonable claims, you should be adhering to the contract.

Fortunately I am not insured with your company and instead am insured with a far more enlightened company.

Strange reaction. The position is quite clear and based on common sense, it is reasonable to expect the policyholder to take reasonable steps to minimise the possibility of loss. That may or may not be possible dependant on circumstances but to be advised of a flood warning and to take a conscious decision not to try and protect your property doesn't pass the test of common sense and won't go down well at FOS I suspect.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

Does comprehensive cover in the UK automatically cover flood damage, or is it an option you have to buy?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Re emails...do you mean easy to fake as in producing a copy? What if the original is sat on my email system....surely that's hard to fake?

I can assure you that emails are a doddle to fake. If I wanted I could send you an email purporting to come from anyone you so desired. There are many ways to fake an email.

Take your example - assume this third party has emailed you saying they DIDN'T accept liability. Now forward that email to yourself but before you hit send change the text of the original email to say the third party DOES accept liability, remove all the extra guff like headers and remove the FW from the subject line and hit send. Hey presto you have an email that says something completely opposite but when printed looks original. And that is just one simple way to fake an email ...... there are plenty of others.

 

[studio150]

Does comprehensive cover in the UK automatically cover flood damage, or is it an option you have to buy?

Flood damage is standard cover on comprehensive policies

 

[studio150]

Strange reaction. The position is quite clear and based on common sense, it is reasonable to expect the policyholder to take reasonable steps to minimise the possibility of loss. That may or may not be possible dependant on circumstances but to be advised of a flood warning and to take a conscious decision not to try and protect your property doesn't pass the test of common sense and won't go down well at FOS I suspect.

Why is it reasonable to move your vehicle following a flood warning. I would have thought that most people (if not all) would look to moving treasured possessions within their home rather than rushing to move their vehicle. Also some householders who have been interviewed have stated that it is the first time in 200 years that the property has been flooded. No wonder some Insurers give the whole sector a bad name if they just look to decline valid claims.

 

[studio150]

If you don't mind my asking an off topic question, has the insurance act changes altered policy wordings and/or pricingin your experience? I know a lot of the changes are aimed at non-consumer insurance.

I ask as I work in the run-off market so haven't encountered recent policies yet but will do in the future.

The Insurance Act isnt effective until August but you will see changes on commercial contracts. The main ones are around basis of contract how non disclosure and misrepresentation are handled fair presentation of risk and breach of warranties. A read of the Act will give you a full insight. I would expect you to start seeing how Insurers have altered their policies from around May/June time

 

[Notters]

If you live or work (the two questions about where a car is kept and where it is used) in an area prone to flooding you are likely to find it financially unviable to get comprehensive insurance. TP/TPFT insurance won't cover floods.

Far more often than not the car is a writeoff due to the risk of initially undetected damage to wiring/connectors that could cause trouble later on.

But they never ask where you work? Except to say it is in a office car park or whatever.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I can assure you that emails are a doddle to fake.

I love the EU signed Westdene Seagull.

 

[marshy68]

There we go, my hypothetical question made real.

Shirley that accident can't all be your fault?

Always ur fault if you go into the back of someone. Unless you can prove you were stationery and they reversed into you.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

CUE or MID would not necessarily flag up a pattern IF all claims made against this 'old duffer' showed non fault or LNID in his favour. It's all about verifying proximate cause.

As for flood damaged vehicles . At fully comp you are entitled to be indemnified against a fortuitous loss. Unless specifically excluded by your policy.

 

[studio150]

Always ur fault if you go into the back of someone. Unless you can prove you were stationery and they reversed into you.

Including when someone cuts in front of you and slams on their breaks all of which is captured on a dashcam?

 

[essbee]

Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

Stat brother - you would be liable I reckon. I've been driving over 30 years and the one thing I've learnt for
sure - trust nobody on the road an inch and you should be ok (touch wood).

 

[studio150]

As for flood damaged vehicles . At fully comp you are entitled to be indemnified against a fortuitous loss. Unless specifically excluded by your policy.

And given your earlier comments on general policy conditions are you indemnifying sitting on the fence or declining flood claims

 

[Deleted User X18H]

And given your earlier comments on general policy conditions are you indemnifying sitting on the fence or declining flood claims

All flood damage would be settled as a fault claim. And NCD adjusted accordingly. Again only in the case of fully comp and individual policy conditions.

 

[studio150]

All flood damage would be settled as a fault claim. And NCD adjusted accordingly. Again only in the case of fully comp and individual policy conditions.

So in the case of the Insurer you work for the answer is what if anyone has not moved their vehicle given the flood warnings you referenced. It cant be that difficult to give a definitive answer

 

[Deleted User X18H]

So in the case of the Insurer you work for the answer is what if anyone has not moved their vehicle given the flood warnings you referenced. It cant be that difficult to give a definitive answer

No. The claim is likely to be settled as fault like a non recovered theft claim would be . In these cases who can the insurer subrogate/ recover against ?

 

[Since1982]

Why is it reasonable to move your vehicle following a flood warning. I would have thought that most people (if not all) would look to moving treasured possessions within their home rather than rushing to move their vehicle. Also some householders who have been interviewed have stated that it is the first time in 200 years that the property has been flooded. No wonder some Insurers give the whole sector a bad name if they just look to decline valid claims.

Because you have a duty to mitigate loss if it is reasonable for you to do so. The original post made it clear that, if time is short, then the vehicle should not be prioritised over belongings In the house. Norhing to do with "declining valid claims", just common sense.

 

[studio150]

No. The claim is likely to be settled as fault like a non recovered theft claim would be . In these cases who can the insurer subrogate/ recover against ?

I am fully aware of the fault/non fault basis Without wanting to labour the question too much earlier you effectively said not paying due to a breach of policy conditions and later your comments seemed to be trying to say something different.

To make it simple comprehensive covered vehicle damaged by flood indemnified less excess or payment refused due to general policy conditions?

 

[Since1982]

Including when someone cuts in front of you and slams on their breaks all of which is captured on a dashcam?

Which is why dash cams are a good thing, to separate the cash for crash scammers from the genuine claims.