Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

[JC2014]

Hi There,


My wife recently had a minor incident in our car, whereby she was struck by a motorist from behind as they were exiting a roundabout. The key piece of information is that she was travelling to a work event and not her usual place of work.


Our policy was for personal and commuting, The insurance company has said that she was not covered as business use was not stipiulated on the policy and she was not travelling to her usual place of work.
They have since recommended going for a 50/50 claim as there were no independant witnesses and the other party is also claiming for damage to their vehicle and whiplash.


They have also advised that whatever the claim is settled for they will be reclaiming the cost from us due to the breach in policy.


To say I'm mortified is an understatement. Has anyone experienced this and what are my options.
We were not aware we were breaching the policy and have since added business use to the policy.
Any advice on options or where to take our query would be appreciated.


Thanks in advance

[ssparks2003]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Your wife has breeched the terms of her policy, thus she was uninsured. not sure what advice you would like but the first thing would be for her to comply with her policy next time or get the right policy.

[enquirer]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Frankly, the insurance company is trying it on.

Was she travelling to the event in lieu of going to her normal place of work? That is to say, for the day, was that her place of work?

Bear in mind that a lot of people have flexibility built into their employment contracts - if you work at Supermarket X, you might be required to work at other stores occasionally. For the purposes of your car insurance, that is your place of work. If what they say were to be true, a very large number of people would be driving around uninsured.

As to the 50/50 deal - insurance companies do this all the time - it's a racket. They split losses - no matter how unjust it may be - so that it all averages out and their profits are increased thereby.

[des8]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

I'm afraid you have discovered the hard way one of the pitfalls of motor insurance.

Your only hope is that the claims people are misreading your policy (unlikely but possible)

can you tell us 1) who are the insurers
2) what policy you hold (so we can find a copy on the internet)
3) is claim being handled by claims company or the insurers directly
4) you say your wife was struck from behind whilst exiting the roundabout
5) this would suggest the third party is 100% responsible for the crash
6) were the police involved
7) did your policy include legal expenses insurance, and if so was that cover provided by a different insurance company. (might get some help there)
8) do you have a copy of your proposal form.

Your insurers (I suspect a claims company) are going for the easy option in trying to persuade you to agree 50/50 and then recover from you.
Your insurers are having to cover your 3rd party liability, but don't want the costs of contesting liability.
As you were hit from behind refuse to accept their suggestion & instruct them that the damage to the vehicles shows your wife was hit from behind and so one must presume the other vehicle must have been too close or travelling too fast or other driver not paying attention.
If the damage was slight one wonders why the other party is suffering whiplash, when the occupants of the vehicle hit in the rear aren't.

If your insurers won't give way and are not handling this claim correctly, you could write to the third party holding them responsible for your losses.
They would have to pass this to their insurers and puts them on the defensive. A bit stressful tho'

[Johnboy007]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Your wife has breeched the terms of her policy, thus she was uninsured. not sure what advice you would like but the first thing would be for her to comply with her policy next time or get the right policy.

A little bit harsh with your comments ssparks.......
Maybe a touch of sympathy wouldn't go amiss.

Personally, I would not accept a 50/50 claim..
It's an insurance easy 'get out of jail almost free' card.
I would suggest that travelling to an event is not using the car for business use.
No company property was carried in the car, and your wife was just using it to commute from one place to another, as allowed under the terms and conditions in the Insurance Policy.
You must be firm on this issue.
Commuting to an event is not doing company business.

Now for the issue of who is in the wrong when it comes to blame for the incident.
I would further suggest to the insurance company, that the highway code stipulates that you drive in a manner, so that you can stop safely in the event of an emergency.
As the third party hit your car in the rear, it would be my contention that he was either not paying attention, or travelling too fast. or too near to your car, to be able to stop in an emergency.
I would suggest that evidence ( photo etc; )of being hit in the rear, is clear proof that THIRD PARTY was solely to blame.

This from the Highway Code, so it cannot be refuted.
126

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

• leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown below)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads

So I would say JC, that your wife is without doubt, the injured party........
Stand up to the insurance company, they screw us for money as it is.

If the insurance company were so sure your wife breached the terms and conditions, they would just tell her that her insurance was null and void and they wouldn't pay up.

[des8]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

If the insurance company were so sure your wife breached the terms and conditions, they would just tell her that her insurance was null and void and they wouldn't pay up.[/B]

Not quite true. There are implications for the insurance industry if third party claims are declined because an insured has misunderstood their policy. Companies will normally pay out third party claims, and in the event their insured was not actually covered, they will attempt to recover from them.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Not quite true. There are implications for the insurance industry if third party claims are declined because an insured has misunderstood their policy. Companies will normally pay out third party claims, and in the event their insured was not actually covered, they will attempt to recover from them.

O.k so I didn't quite go in to the niceties of the insurance business......... :laugh:

[vanman]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Was she traveling to a work event through choice?

And not force to by the employer
Was she getting paid to travel to the event?
If not she was not at work and off duty at the time


Then she was using it on a personal Trip :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Johnboy007]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Was she traveling to a work event through choice?

And not force to by the employer
Was she getting paid to travel to the event?
If not she was not at work and off duty at the time


Then she was using it on a personal Trip :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I would say that using the car for business purposes, would very much be like using you van......man
If you are merely commuting from one place to another, and not carrying company stock or property, then it is just commuting.

[des8]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Whilst policy wordings do differ, most will define commuting as travelling to & fro a permanent place of work, or to the train/bus station.
Travelling to a different place of work could well be classed as "Business Use Class 1"

This is why I have asked for policy wording. Without it we are just speculating.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Whilst policy wordings do differ, most will define commuting as travelling to & fro a permanent place of work, or to the train/bus station.
Travelling to a different place of work could well be classed as "Business Use Class 1"

This is why I have asked for policy wording. Without it we are just speculating.

The swine sure cover their arses, don't they....

[vanman]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Even though I am not in a position to argue the terms on the policy
She was not traveling to a different place of work
She was off to an event held by her employer

[Johnboy007]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

Even though I am not in a position to argue the terms on the policy
She was not traveling to a different place of work
She was off to an event held by her employer

I think we are all playing with words.......
It really doesn't matter what we think, it's what the Insurance company interpret as work.:noidea:

[des8]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

You are still speculating.
OP has posted once "she was travelling to a work event and not her usual place of work"
Until we know what that means everything is useless confusing speculation:colbert:
It could have been an exhibition arranged by her employer and at which she was working, i.e. travelling to a different place of work

[vanman]

Re: Insurance Company to pursue me for cost of claim

the problem is if the the insurance company says she not covered
then she was not insured at all.

so why is the insurance company offing a 50/50 claim