A bit of a rant directed at UK car insurance, I’m afraid.
My daughter lives in Leeds and has a very well looked after Vauxhall Corsa. Yesterday, while parked in the staff car park at her place of work, the car parked next to her caught fire. It was completely destroyed, Meg’s was at least 60% destroyed. With a melted wiring loom, windows destroyed and substantial panel damage it is certainly a write-off. One positive is that no-one was hurt in any way.
The fire brigade attended and were excellent, preventing the fire from spreading further. Their investigation showed a fault in the other vehicle as being the cause of the fire.
Today, Meg’s insurance company have said that the damage to her car will be treated as her fault, unless she can prove negligence by the owner of the faulty car. The result of that is no courtesy car, loss of no claims bonus and not being able to recover the excess.
This really doesn’t seem right to me and I have two questions that I hope someone can help with:
1 Does vehicle fire cover work the same way in France?
2 Can anyone suggest a way to get the UK insurance company in this case to accept that my daughter is blameless in this so does not suffer financially?
Sounds like the insurance company is trying it on, no way can it be your daughters fault. Think there’s an insurance ombudsman (or there used to be) in the uk, failing that threaten press coverage.
Don’t know what the situation is in France , @fabien ?
She needs to claim from the insurance of the other vehicle. I can’t see why there should be a need to prove that vehicle’s owner was negligent but it was their vehicle that cought fire and caused damage to another’s property so it is their 3rd party cover which should be coughing up.
I also can’t see why her insurance is not claiming from the other vehicle’s insurer. Did she have legal protection with her policy?
Motor insurers take a simplistic but very polarised view - if there is another party from whom they can recover their loss then you are not “at fault”. If not you are, simples. It’s not about fault per se, it’s about whether the insurer has to pay out.
I assume she has the details for the other driver and their insurance. If she doesn’t that might be why her insurer is taking the current stance.
Edit: crazy though it might appear it seems your daughter’s insurer is right. The 3rd party liability only exists of you cause damage to the 3rd party, not if a random event occurs which damages their property. So the liability only exists if you can demonstrate negligence on the part of the vehicle’s owner which could have caused the fire.
I’m a little gobsmacked myself and it certainly seems grossly unfair to your daughter (or anyone else in this position). At least she had comprehensive insurance or she’d not get anything.
Insurance companies will be first up against the wall when the Revolution comes.
Years ago I was involved in a motorcycle accident where a car turned right across my path and I had no option but to hit it front-on. I ended up on my back on the bonnet and almost through the windscreen (not injured, amazingly).
The driver’s insurance company assessor claimed that the front forks of the motorcycle being bent under the engine by the impact was “pre-existing damage”.
I like to watch Judge Judy and there was an exact same case on there some days ago when a lady lost her car which was parked next to one that caught fire and her insurers refused to pay up. She alledged that a mechanic had been working on the vehicle a few days before as it was a private carpark for residents and she was trying to sue the other destroyed car owner for hers. The judge said she must claim on her own insurance but then it transpired she was not fully insured for all eventualities and this was one of those and a ruling could not be made as it was upto her to pursue her own insurers.
Thanks all for your salient and interesting points. Yes, the insurance is fully comp, and yes, I believe she is talking to a jobsworth!
She’s getting the fire service to email their report over. Armed with that I hope she’ll be able to start a more detailed conversation with someone more senior.
Keep the thoughts coming, please. I’ll let you know how she gets on.
You would think that her insurer - who is making a lot of money from her - would just take off their misery hat and help her out as a valued client. It would take very little effort on their part, but no - they have to be unhelpful - it comes with their breeding.
Actually, this rings a bell, and maybe it is the way.
The trouble with this is, even if successful and the insurer manages to recoup from the other insurer, it will mean that ‘you have made a claim’ a statement that does not bode well in future applications…
Agree - however, it seems that when you carry liability insurance (and 3rd party motor is a form of liability insurance) that liability only exists if you do something to cause damage to a 3rd party. If it is not your fault no liability exists - that is actually logical enough if you think about it.
So in this case @_Brian’s daughter isn’t covered by the policy of the other driver.
It sucks because as _Brian said, it negatively impacts her own insurance history (and wallet when excesses are considered) for something which wasn’t her fault either.
One thing I learned recently about insurance is that if you have an accident while under the influence your insurer will drop you like a stone. You will not be insured.
Which means any injured party will be coming after you and your personal assets for compensation.
Uk insurers are more like loan sharks, once claimed they try to get the money back which is a loan not insurance.
Its a no claim bonus not a no blame bonus and I hope the fire brigade report contains something useful. Should deffo engage one of the claims companies. A women who drove into me got a payout of nearly 10k for a car worth less than 500. The insurer said they dont argue of its less than 12k so just paid out the women via a claims agent. Daft but true.
