Robinmaster's Thread of Insurance Nonsense

[robinmasters]

I’ve been meaning to do this for a while.  

 

I don’t claim to be an expert, but I work in insurance, and have done for many years.  Mostly car insurance.  There are other on here who may well know more about it than me (I think fairkens is in insurance, and BV know far more about the law than I could ever hope to), so hopefully if I do get something wrong someone will correct me.

 

Every time an insurance issue crops up, there is a lot of advice given, not all of it good.  A large proportion of it is invariably third-hand.  

 

I would like to (try) and provide some advice, hopefully useful, on those things which affect most of us at some point-mostly the after-effects of car accidents, but I’ll try and mention a few things which seem to be generally misunderstood and give insurance companies the bad reputation which they (often undeservedly) have.

[plasticvandan]

Adrian fux surely deserve their rep though?

[robinmasters]

‘Act of God’

This is the issue which prompted me to start this thread, as it was mentioned in another thread following the recent inclement weather.  A tile had dropped onto someone’s car, from a neighbour’s roof, and it was pointed out that the neighbour’s house insurance may not cover the damage to the car.  

The phrase ‘Act of God’ is used to describe something which happened which was nobody's fault.  ‘Just one of those things’.  

The insurance on your house, or your car, doesn’t cover everything and everything.  It covers (usually) the damage to the property that you own (the house or the car), and liabilities arising out of your ownership or use of that property.  If someone else wants to claim on your insurance, they have to show that you have been negligent in some way.   

Most events are fairly straightforward; you drive your car into a wall, your insurance company pay to have your car fixed, and to have the wall fixed.  Simple.  Clearly you were negligent in driving your car into the wall, so you are legally liable for the damage to the wall.  However, in the case of the tile falling off the roof, is the homeowner legally liable for the damage to the car?  The short answer is, not necessarily.  

If the homeowner has done everything they can to ensure that tiles don’t fall off the roof, then they are not liable for the damage caused if a tile does come off.  If the roof was maintained properly, how could they have stopped the tile coming off when it was very, very windy?  Imagine it was not the wind, a tile, and a car.  Instead of the wind, it was another uncontrollable force of nature, a large, wild, elephant.  Imagine that elephant charged at your car, pushing your car into a greenhouse.  Is that your fault?  Should your insurance company pay for the damage to the greenhouse?  Was it your fault?  Of course not.

[robinmasters]

Adrian fux surely deserve their rep though?

 

Possibly, but they're not an insurance company. 

[cort1977]

Thanks for starting the thread.

[SiC]

So if a tile came off, its the car owners responsibility to get it repaired? Not the house owners property that has caused it?

[doobietoo]

I would have thought that if a bit of wind blew a tile off a roof. that it by its very nature was not properly maintained, after all not all the tiles on all the houses blew off......

[leakingstrut]

Probably a stupid question, does the third party cover included on many insurance policies to drive other cars also cover privately owned vans?

 

I've got a pox Vivaro and don't want anybody to find themselves accidentally uninsured if I lend them it. It's insured on a van policy, not a car one.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

^ thats a good question. On that topic, I have studied my policy documentation many times for a clarification, it defo says I am insured 3rd party to drive other folks' knackers but defo does not make any mention of whether that car needs a separate insuance policy of its own.

[robinmasters]

I would have thought that if a bit of wind blew a tile off a roof. that it by its very nature was not properly maintained, after all not all the tiles on all the houses blew off......

 

In an earthquake, not all of the buildings fall over.  As a property owner, you only have to take reaonable steps to ensure your property is maintained, which, as the owner of a private house isn't a great deal.  If you haven't left obvious damage unrepaired, you've probably done enough.

[garbaldy]

^ thats a good question. On that topic, I have studied my policy documentation many times for a clarification, it defo says I am insured 3rd party to drive other folks' knackers but defo does not make any mention of whether that car needs a separate insuance policy of its own.

yes I would also like clarification as mr plod told me a car had to be insured on its own as well.

[JayW]

^ thats a good question. On that topic, I have studied my policy documentation many times for a clarification, it defo says I am insured 3rd party to drive other folks' knackers but defo does not make any mention of whether that car needs a separate insuance policy of its own.

Oh it most certainly MUST have a policy of its own. Shite I know but yes.

 

Additionally, my van policy doesn't cover me to drive anything other than a courtesy van.

 

Similarly, a car policy does not cover you to drive a van or car derived van. Different insurance classes. It's a bit like expecting your car policy to cover you on a mates moped.

[robinmasters]

Probably a stupid question, does the third party cover included on many insurance policies to drive other cars also cover privately owned vans?

 

I've got a pox Vivaro and don't want anybody to find themselves accidentally uninsured if I lend them it. It's insured on a van policy, not a car one.

 

Probably not, but you'd need to check the policy wording.  A car policy will normally say you're entitled to drive other 'private cars'. 

 

Like most of the law, apply the normal meanings of words; if it says 'car', it means 'car', not 'van', even if that van is privately owned and isn't used for any sort of business. 

[leakingstrut]

Cheers, I figured that was the case. My own policy states "private car blah blah blah", and I wondered how liberal you could be with that definition.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Oh it most certainly MUST have a policy of its own. Shite I know but yes.

 

 

Where is this writtemn down though? Except on your post obvs.

[Faker]

Excellent thread.

[JayW]

Where is this writtemn down though? Except on your post obvs.

 

 

It is slowly being drafted in to Certificates, some of mine say it, some don't. It's a work in progress with insurance companies and as you'd expect, they're pretty slow to catch up. The law is still the law, we all know a cars gotta be insured in its own right.

 

I'm not claiming to be a saint, not at all. But, I think the problems exist purely because people are always trying to find some "clause" that makes them feel special, like they're better than everyone else.

 

The rulez iz the rulez. We ain't special or above them.

[John F]

robinmasters, on 28 Mar 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:robinmasters, on 28 Mar 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:robinmasters, on 28 Mar 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:

‘Act of God’

 

This is the issue which prompted me to start this thread, as it was mentioned in another thread following the recent inclement weather.  A tile had dropped onto someone’s car, from a neighbour’s roof, and it was pointed out that the neighbour’s house insurance may not cover the damage to the car.  

 

The phrase ‘Act of God’ is used to describe something which happened which was nobody's fault.  ‘Just one of those things’.  

 

The insurance on your house, or your car, doesn’t cover everything and everything.  It covers (usually) the damage to the property that you own (the house or the car), and liabilities arising out of your ownership or use of that property.  If someone else wants to claim on your insurance, they have to show that you have been negligent in some way.   

 

Most events are fairly straightforward; you drive your car into a wall, your insurance company pay to have your car fixed, and to have the wall fixed.  Simple.  Clearly you were negligent in driving your car into the wall, so you are legally liable for the damage to the wall.  However, in the case of the tile falling off the roof, is the homeowner legally liable for the damage to the car?  The short answer is, not necessarily.  

 

If the homeowner has done everything they can to ensure that tiles don’t fall off the roof, then they are not liable for the damage caused if a tile does come off.  If the roof was maintained properly, how could they have stopped the tile coming off when it was very, very windy?  Imagine it was not the wind, a tile, and a car.  Instead of the wind, it was another uncontrollable force of nature, a large, wild, elephant.  Imagine that elephant charged at your car, pushing your car into a greenhouse.  Is that your fault?  Should your insurance company pay for the damage to the greenhouse?  Was it your fault?  Of course not.

 

I tried to claim against my own house insurance when a tile blew off my roof & hit my Maserati.

 

My insurance informed me that "damage involving motor vehicles is expressly not covered by my policy". I asked them whether damage to someone else's vehicle would be covered & they flatly refused to give me a straight answer. Annoying, since I wasn't claiming for an incident ARISING from the use or storage of a motor vehicle, the insured item (my house) was the thing that caused the damage.

 

In this event, the incident was not deemed to be "force majeure" since they happily paid for the broken tile to be replaced.

[taxi paul]

A couple of years ago my friendly taxi mechanic lived in a council house. He had noticed the gable end bulging out and had reported it to the council. They sent out an inspector to have a look and he declared it fine. The mechanic then wisely kept a record of phone calls and photographic evidence of further inspector visits, each time to say its not a problem , don't worry etc. When the inevitable happened and a large chunk of gable end came down in a storm , all over his two cars on the drive. He was able to claim , with the help of a solicitor for his damage to his cars. Turns out the inspector the council sent out was actually a joiner who had been promoted and not a structural engineer.Therefore rendering his reports and opinion on said brickwork has much use has the ice cream man's.

[Parky]

As I was the one involved in the whole tile/car interface, I am going to call my insurer today and see where we stand. I can't believe I cannot make a claim. If the tile had flipped off and landed on my head killing me, surely the landlords public liability insurance covers that, right?.

 

Might be worth mentioning he has Landlords insurance which must include an element of public liability cover surely?

 

Those tiles came off before(big storm in 2013). Whoever fitted the replacements did a shit job. However the landlord didn't own the house then, the then resident is now dead, and I didn't keep any photographic time stamped evidence of the damage and repairs so can't prove anything.

 

I will let you know what they say

[Dippy]

Great thread and interesting to hear an insiders opinions.

[meshking]

^ thats a good question. On that topic, I have studied my policy documentation many times for a clarification, it defo says I am insured 3rd party to drive other folks' knackers but defo does not make any mention of whether that car needs a separate insuance policy of its own.

Like a lot (most?) people on here, I have a multitude of car policies. One of these does state that the other car must be insured. Two of them do not state that. Therefore if I just had the one policy that did not mention that the car must otherwise be insured then I could only follow what is written on my policy.

However, with the requirement for continuous insurance if that car is taxed then there must be a policy in place. I don't know how continuous insurance is policed, however.

[fairkens]

As I was the one involved in the whole tile/car interface, I am going to call my insurer today and see where we stand. I can't believe I cannot make a claim. If the tile had flipped off and landed on my head killing me, surely the landlords public liability insurance covers that, right?.

 

Might be worth mentioning he has Landlords insurance which must include an element of public liability cover surely?

 

Those tiles came off before(big storm in 2013). Whoever fitted the replacements did a shit job. However the landlord didn't own the house then, the then resident is now dead, and I didn't keep any photographic time stamped evidence of the damage and repairs so can't prove anything.

 

I will let you know what they say

It doesn't really change anything because it's the also the public liability policy that would pay for your car if the claim was covered. Your estate would face the same issue if you had died, could you prove that the homeowner had failed to maintain? Only difference is it might be worth pushing it if you had died because the potential damages are greater

[Pillock]

Like a lot (most?) people on here, I have a multitude of car policies. One of these does state that the other car must be insured. Two of them do not state that. Therefore if I just had the one policy that did not mention that the car must otherwise be insured then I could only follow what is written on my policy.

However, with the requirement for continuous insurance if that car is taxed then there must be a policy in place. I don't know how continuous insurance is policed, however.

 

Which is a great example of why it's dangerous to believe "a stranger on the internet" when you set out on a roadtrip in someone else's motor. They'll give you their policy wording and their experience, and how many people in the real world have two or three policies to compare?

 

Robin seems to be giving more generic advice, such as "wtf does Act of God mean?" which will apply to insurance across the board - car, house, goat etc. As for specific policy wording, you're gonna have to ring your own insurer and ask. The good thing now is that many are email-first or even email-only so you have something to print and take with you saying it's OK to do what you're doing. 

 

The Act of God makes perfect sense to me - I can't guarantee my roof tiles won't blow off, even though there's nothing wrong with my roof. If I'd gaffer taped some clingfilm over the roof because I knew they were all loose, that would be different. The wording irritates me, because I can be a pedantic athiest twat about stuff like that, but I get the spirit of the clause.

[Urko]

Act of God doesn't actually appear in any policy wording - probably to avoid arguments about religion. The point (and it is well made) is that sometimes shit happens that isn't anyone's fault.

 

Actually, it's really all driven by UK law - think about what would happen if there was no insurance - if tiles fell off your neighbour's roof and you wanted to take him to court, you'd have to prove that he was responsible - and the mere fact the tiles fell off isn't proof.

[John F]

I prefer the terms "force majeure" or "casus fortuitus", they don't have the quite same credulous connotations.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

It is slowly being drafted in to Certificates, some of mine say it, some don't. It's a work in progress with insurance companies and as you'd expect, they're pretty slow to catch up. The law is still the law, we all know a cars gotta be insured in its own right.

 

I'm not claiming to be a saint, not at all. But, I think the problems exist purely because people are always trying to find some "clause" that makes them feel special, like they're better than everyone else.

 

The rulez iz the rulez. We ain't special or above them.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone is above the law, I don't know where you're getting that from. I get the vibe you think I am looking for a 'loophole' i can exploit to drive uninsured or something. Back in the day i used to use this clause a lot to drive round in other folk's cars without giving a fig about thier own insurance situation, but I havent bothered with that for years because of this vagueness.

 

If this is a 'work in progress' as you say, what is the 'before' situation, what is the 'after' and where is it written down? I would have thought that, if my 3rd party cover is valid on someone elses's car ONLY if there is another policy on that car somewhere, that my insurers would make that clear? Its pretty important. Why does it not say it anywhere if thats the legal position?

[Alan_Green]

The wording of some car insurance policies don't require the borrowed car to be insured elsewhere. That used to be useful back in the day. You'd still get a pull from the cops as it would ping up as unisured on ANPR but then you could produce the docs. But the SORN/Continuous insurance rules put an end to that advantage. AFAIK.

[New POD]

The wording of some car insurance policies don't require the borrowed car to be insured elsewhere. That used to be useful back in the day. You'd still get a pull from the cops as it would ping up as unisured on ANPR but then you could produce the docs. But the SORN/Continuous insurance rules put an end to that advantage. AFAIK.

 

BUT a car does not always need TAX or an MOT to be driven on the road legally (if it has some insurance).

 

So back in the Day, some years ago before computers and internet, and ANPR cameras, I drove my wife's 850 mini to a Pre-booked MOT without Tax, using my own insurance via the clause which was something like :  "and any other vehicle not owned by you is covered for 3rd Party risks"

 

The fact that the MOT was near my parents house some 25 miles the other side of Birmingham, and it "broke down on the way", just as it passed my parents house may have been stretching the legalities of it.  But the car spent 4 weeks in their garage undergoing repairs, and was then booked into an MOT close to our house. 

 

Oh how I long for the 80's again.

[New POD]

Dear RobinMasters,

I have a question.

Some time back I was getting a quote and the broker / insurer was trying to upsell, some extras including personal accident cover for all my passengers, for which they wanted some £40.

 

Now I attempted to point out, that in the unlikely event that I crashed, and it was my fault, they could sue me for their injuries, as they are third parties.

 

The twat on the phone told me that was definitely not the case because they were inside my car.

 

I feel this person was lying. If I could remember who it was and how long ago, and the exact time and date of the phone call, I'd make a pointless complaint, and get his career in Insurance terminated, so he could only ever work as a letting agent, or social worker.