Car insurance refusal to accept claim

[oddball1000]

Hi all , hope somebody can help.

 

In October i reversed my car into another vehicle which also belongs to me , embarrassing to admit , believe me , i've had some stick over this not funny at all.

 

Anyway , contacted my insurance Company who said that i could claim for the damage to my car that i was insured in with them but could not claim for the damage to my other vehicle because that was my own personal property and as such was not covered by my insurance within the Terms and Conditions of my policy under the section of Section C, Liability to Other People and Their Property.

 

I had a quick look in the T&Cs and everything appeared to agree with what was explained so i did not push that claim any further and had the damage to my insured car sorted out with the Insurance Company . Over the Christmas period whilst having just 1 shandy in the pub , honest!!, we were talking and a friend said , heard about the accident you had and everyone started laughing . When things settled down we talked about it and queried why my other vehicle that was damaged was not able to be by my insurance , a few good points were raised as well as some stupid ones , one guy said , i'm sure a mates sisters boyfriends cousin 2nd removed drove his car into his garage doors and that was done on his insurance . Too much hassle to trace through Genes Reunited but some people believed i could be covered so decided to have a closer look at the Terms and Conditions section ,Liability to Other People and Their Property which includes the following .Struggling to attatch files so will add them below .

 

Thanks

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48571[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48570[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]48571[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]48570[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]48571[/ATTACH]

[Conniff]

But you say 'Other People', you are not other people and not a third party. Other than that I have no idea and can't see anything that says you are covered for property you own.

[oddball1000]

In Section C , Liability to Other People it states,

 

We will not pay:

for any liability if any person insured under this section does not keep to the terms exceptions and conditions of this policy

 

• in the attachments it shows the full two pages that cover this section and towards the bottom on the 2nd page it states
  
• anyone we insure under this section , if the claim relates to loss or damage to property that belongs to them ( either as owner or as joint owner) or is in their care
  
• any loss or damage to the car covered by this policy.
  

My point now and argument is the if word in the above , if i have kept to the terms, exceptions and conditions of the policy under this section . Then does that mean that they admit they will pay.

 

Also if it states above , under this section that they will not pay for any loss or damage to the car covered by this section if ido not keep to the terms etc. Why have they accepted the claim i made on my insured vehicle and paid out for it .

 

Also at the beginning of the 3rd section on the 1st page it states , On the same basis that we cover you under this section .

 

I suppose it is a case of if's or but's so which one is right and how would you interpret the above points to help me decide whether i should pursue the damage to my other vehicle.

 

Thanks , hope someone could help or start a discussion

[Conniff]

I think they are saying we will pay for property that was in or attached to the car at the time, not everything you own.

[oddball1000]

Thanks for the reply Connif , in answering your reply i understand i'm not ; other people or a third party . But throughout the whole agreement this is the only section that includes my property in any claim and it is the insurance company that has included me in this section of ; Liability to Other People and Their Property, why would it state that i would not be covered for any loss or damage to the car covered by this section ,

[Conniff]

Is your second car insured or sorn ?

[unclebulgaria67]

You can only claiim for damage to the car covered by your Insurance policy and not any second car you own, which is not under that policy. To be able to claim for the other car, you would need to do so under a policy for the second car.

 

Comp cover is basically damage to the car listed on the policy and liability to third parties.

[oddball1000]

Hi unclebulgaria67, my point is .

 

 

• This is the section the insurance company has used to deny the claim against my other vehicle
  
• This is the section the insurance company have stated in the section that they will not pay; for any loss or damage to the car covered by this policy But they have
  
• This is the section where the insurance company have included any loss or damage to my property with the condition that ; if i do not keep to the terms and conditions they will not pay .
  
• because i have kept to the terms and conditions they have paid for loss or damage to the car covered by this policy
  
• on the same basis should that include my property as the same condition of the word if applies
  
• Both conditions are in the same section one above the other , why can one be accepted and one declined under the same conditions
  

[oddball1000]

Another point , why does the insurance company not just state under no circumstances will we be liable to damage caused to your own property , instead the include my property in the section of liability to other people and their property . With the word if being a deciding factor .

 

If , i keep to the terms and conditions they will pay

If , i do not keep to the terms and conditions they will not pay

[oddball1000]

Hi Connif, in answer to your previous question ,

My second vehicle is actually my main vehicle and not that old and is my bread and butter . It had just had a new turbo and egr valve done at a cost of over £1200 and was already booked in for an MOT when damaged occured. It passed its MOT no problem as the damage is only cosmetic .

[unclebulgaria67]

Sorry don't understand the point you are making. The second car you damaged would not be covered by your Car Insurance, because 1) it is not listed on the Insurance & 2) the second car is owned by you, not a third party.

 

If you really think you have a case, why don't you write to the Insurers, make your point and ask them to write back to you explaining.

[oddball1000]

The point i am making is

1. It states that , they will not pay for loss or damage to the car covered in the policy . But they already have settled for my insured vehicle

 

have you looked at my documents for the wording

 

In a one hour conversation they refused to accept the word if and would not explain why they settled for the insured car but would not include my 2nd vehicle in the same argument on the same point of if

Edited January 10, 2014 by oddball1000
addition

[unclebulgaria67]

The point i am making is

1. It states that , they will not pay for loss or damage to the car covered in the policy . But they already have settled for my insured vehicle

 

have you looked at my documents for the wording

 

In a one hour conversation they refused to accept the word if and would not explain why they settled for the insured car but would not include my 2nd vehicle in the same argument on the same point of if

 

Your car listed on your policy was covered under the main part of the Insurance which covers that car. You are purely looking at the third party liability section, which will state that the car covered by the policy is not covered under that section, because some people will have third party cover only, so obviously no cover for the car listed on the policy.

 

You can't just read one section of the policy. You have to read it all.

[TSx]

You are insured for your legal liability in respect of third party claims - that is to say they will cover any costs which are awarded in a court. Generally speaking, it will not get this far as the insurers will settle before it reaches court.

 

The key element is that you cannot possibly be legally liable for the damage to the second car - as owner of the second car, to get damages awarded, you would have to sue yourself - which you cannot do.

 

The only cover is therefore under the comprehensive cover section, and this will only cover the car named on the schedule.

[oddball1000]

I can assure you i have read all fifty four pages of my documents including ; General policy exceptions , which the insurance company explained covered by queries over my property . "not true " , there is no mention of "We will not pay for damage to your own property" anywhere. Apart from section C.

 

It was the insurance company that first stated that under Section C Liability to Other People and Their Property was the section i needed to refer to. I have not just decided to read only one section as you wrongly assume and have read it all. In great detail

 

Section C is theonly section that mentions "my property" and in that section are the points raised above . As such that makes it the only section to reference due to it being the only section including "my property" in my documents and the only reason the insurance company use it.

 

My whole concern is "The wording of that section " That is what my argument is based on , in particular the words they choose to use .

Why is my property mentioned in a clause under the heading Liability to Other People and Their Property and is not included anywhere else . You cannot disregard the use of my property if they have included it in section C with a condition attached of keeping to the terms and conditions of my agreement which i have .

 

Also to show how i believe the section of my property should be included have a look in the documents i attached under the heading "We will not pay "where it states

 

• legal costs and expenses incurred without our written consent
  

That means if i do not keep to the terms and conditions of my agreement they will not pay

 

• legal costs and expenses incurred without our written consent
  

That means that if i seek their permission and it is granted , then they will pay the legal costs because i have kept to the terms and conditions of my agreement .

That's how i interpret and may be wrong , i'm certainly no expert but have heard nothing that answers my points that i have made . As i say i believe it is the wording within the section that they have included .

 

In your argument you mention the use of third party insurance as my reason for misunderstanding , I have fully comprehensive insurance and third party cover only is not included in the fifty four pages i don't think AXA even do third party only , the vast majority of insurances are cheaper these days to be fully comp .

[TSx]

I only have the current policy booklet to go on but wording is similar.

 

Section A - damage to your car - won't cover it as this refers to the definitions of "your" and "car" which effectively mean the vehicle you own shown on the schedule of insurance

Section B - fire and theft - not applicable

Section C - liability to other people and their property - apart from the fact this clearly says "other people", it will not cover payments to " anyone we insure under this section, if the claim relates to loss or damage to property that belongs to them (either as owner or as joint owner) or is in their care." - it is also covering your legal liability, which does not exist here

Section D - windscreen and window damage to your car

Section E - personal accident - doesn't cover property damage to relevant

Section F - additional benefits - nothing for damage to property, other than personal belongings whilst in your car

Section G - foreign use - not relevant

Section H - no claims discount - not relevant

Section I - personal accident plus - not relevant

Section J - courtesy car option - not relevant

Section K - legal assistance - not relevant

Section L - breakdown option - not relevant

 

Imagine for a second you're a claims handler at AXA - for something to be covered on the policy, it has to come under one of the sections which are listed in the policy booklet. How would you cover it? Under which section?

 

Whenever your car appears, it is defined and refers solely to the car in your schedule.

 

I'm not sure why you're talking about legal costs incurred without their consent - this means that you get your own solicitor involved without speaking to AXA first, they will not pay the solicitors fees. There is no "without our consent" qualification to the section on property you own.

 

I don't think AXA have been particularly helpful in explaining things to you, but they will have covered the damage to the vehicle you were driving under section A. There is no valid claim under section C for the damage to your other vehicle. The bullet points in section C under we will not pay are all independent of each other.

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't think AXA have been particularly helpful in explaining things to you, but they will have covered the damage to the vehicle you were driving under section A. There is no valid claim under section C for the damage to your other vehicle. The bullet points in section C under we will not pay are all independent of each other.

 

Well we don't really know how helpful AXA were at explaining this. We have attempted to explain , but oddball thinks they have spotted errors with the policy wording and therefore they will have to write to AXA to make their case. It is pretty pointless responding further to this thread, because it is up to AXA to explain things properly to oddball.