Avoiding Car Insurance Claims, From Being Declined

Traffichelp4U - Providing Website Traffic Info 24/7

Today Is:

Avoiding Car Insurance Claims, From Being Declined

For many years perhaps right up until the Thatcher years of the 1980s attitudes in business and towards insurance companies in particular, were different; clients tended to remain with the same insurance company for years and there was considerably less "shopping around" than there is today. In turn the insurance company's approach to the client was different; if you were a loyal client that had been with the company for years they would on occasions consider paying a claim that they might have otherwise rejected. In today's more commercial world, for an Insurance company to pay a claim, where they believe they have grounds for declining it, the claimant would need to be a very sizeable client, representing a considerable amount of profitability to the company, loyalty is unlikely to play a part in the decision.

Although it is not widely known, most contract hire companies have a form of fall back insurance for their contract hire vehicles; this can covers them if the hirer has an accident and their insurer refuses to pay out. Of course the contract hire company will then hold the hirer liable for any loss, but on occasions the hirer is a limited company that subsequently goes into liquidation. If there are no personal guarantees in place then the contract hire company has no means of recovering its money other than to claim on their own insurance. Nowadays contract hire companies are seeing an increasing number of cases where claims are being repudiated. The more serious the accident, the more closely the insurance company will investigate a claim. After all they have to look after their shareholders interests, paying claims where the insurer or driver have not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance, is not looking after the shareholders interests.

Many companies with company cars are not aware that the motor insurer's terms and condition state that a vehicle must not be modified in any way, without advising them of the changes. It is for this reason safer to fit the manufacturer's recommended tyres, with the correct speed rating. It is important that employees understand that they must not change or modify their company vehicle in any way, in order not to run the risk of invalidating the insurance. Some employers have discovered, following an accident, that an employee has done what is know as "chip" the company vehicle's engine. This has the effect of increasing the car's horsepower. The insurer will often, with justification, refuse to pay out a claim, because the car is more powerful than the vehicle they understood they were insuring. It also causes another problem in that it can invalidate the car's warranty. In this eventuality it could cause the contract hire or leasing company to make a claim against the hirer; if the vehicle were for example on two years contract hire, then the hirer would be returning the vehicle without its third year warranty.

Also the company car must be kept in a roadworthy condition. If a company vehicle is on contract hire, then there is usually not much to worry about; it will on average be less than two years old and regularly serviced and maintained. In a case where a company buys and keeps it's vehicles for longer than the typical contract hire term, maybe four or five years, then ensuring they are, in what an insurance company would consider is a roadworthy condition, can be more difficult. The risk of a vehicle developing a fault that could make it un-roadworthy generally increases, the higher the mileage.

There are however, apart from lack of maintenance, many things that can cause a car to be un-roadworthy; if one of your company vehicles is in an accident and it is found to have the wrong tyre pressures, with the tyres under, over or unevenly inflated this could be a serious problem. It would of course depend on the circumstances of the accident; if another vehicle drove into the rear of an employee's stationary car, it could hardly be considered a factor and it is very unlikely under these circumstances that the insurer would check the car's roadworthiness; they would have no reason to do so.

If the circumstances of the accident were different, if say your employee's vehicle skidded and crashed into another vehicle or failed to negotiate a bend and crashed, then it is quite possible that the insurer will carry out various checks on the vehicle, to ensure that it was roadworthy. Driving with the incorrect tyre pressure can be very dangerous; it can affect braking, steering, road holding and the general stability of the car. Employee's need to be advised that they must check their tyre pressure on a regular basis, tyres are best checked when they are cold. The incorrect tyre pressure apart from the increased risk of having an accident will also significantly increase your overall fuel bill.

Company cars should have their tyres checked on a regular basis to ensure that wear is within the legal limit. In the past servicing was carried out on average every 12,000 miles, now manufacturers have extended the intervals and it can even be 20,000 miles. Clearly with intervals this long the company cannot rely on the serving department advising them when tyres have insufficient or uneven wear. Driving the vehicle with the wrong tyre pressure can cause uneven wear.

A risk to the company's insurance cover that is often overlooked by companies is when employees drive their company cars whilst having exceeded the legal limit of alcohol consumption. The risk is higher outside of office hours, when employees stop for a drink on their way home, or at weekends. Whilst it may be outside office hours, it is still the company's vehicle and insurance. It was revealed in a study in 1998 that in 10% of motorcycle accidents where there was a fatality and 19% of fatal car accidents, alcohol was involved. It seems extraordinary that even today with all the increased publicity, there are drivers who believe their driving skills are enhanced following alcohol consumption.

The same will apply if the employee is under the influence of drugs. The company should also take into account that an employee may be taking a prescription drug that could affect their ability to drive safely. It would perhaps not be unreasonable for a company to check with an employee if they feel this could be the case. With the new legislation that comes into force in April 2008, the company is responsible for ensuring that its employees are safe when driving on company business.

Another risk is when the insurance company believe that a loss has been caused by negligence on the part of the driver. An example of this would be where an employee has left his car, either on the drive or in the road, with the engine running; many do this in the winter so that when they get into the car, it is already heated up. If an employee does this, or leaves the keys in the car when at the petrol station and an opportunistic thief jumps in and drives off, the insurance company is unlikely to pay out.

If the company vehicles are to be insured whilst on the road, the driver must have a valid driving licence. There are many employers that believe that taking a photocopy of an employee's driving licence is all that is necessary. Some have never seen the original and accept a photocopy provided by the employee, only to discover following an accident, that the employee had been previously disqualified.

If a company uses a contract hire broker to source their vehicles they could arrange for the broker to regularly check the employee's driving licences; a licence checking service is offered by the more established contract hire and leasing brokers. This is the only way that a company can be sure an employee not been convicted of offences that they are unaware of and cause their insurance to be invalidated. This will also help them to avoid being prosecuted under new legislation introduced in April 2008.

If an insurer rejects a claim, it does not necessarily follow that they have acted correctly. There have been many such decisions by insurance companies, which have subsequently been overturned by the Financial Ombudsman, the body that deals with disputes or complaints against insurance companies. In a case that involved one of our clients, the insurance company refused to settle a claim in excess of 60,000 following a car jacking. They justified this because the vehicle did not have tracker fitted, in spite of the fact that they had told the client on many occasions that it was a requirement. The client, who disagreed with the insurer's decision, called in an expert. The expert said that whilst the insurer had told the client he must have Tracker fitted, they had not written to the client and told him they were no longer providing cover. The expert's views were made known to the company and the claim was settled in full, soon after.

In summary it can help to avoid claims being declined by observing the following: Ensure that the vehicle is properly and regularly maintained; Tyre pressures should be checked at least every two weeks, preferably when cold; No modifications should be made to a vehicle, without informing the insurance company; Drivers must take action if a warning light is illuminated; Employees should be warned of the dangers of driving whilst in excess of the legal limit for alcohol consumption; Drugs, including prescription drugs, can affect a driver's ability to drive safely. Drug testing is now used by some companies, up to 80% of large US companies test for drugs, although there are concerns regarding false positives; Vehicles should never be left unattended, with the engine running; Use one of the specialist companies or a contract hire broker to regularly check employee's driving licences. Observing these points will at least help to avoid motor insurance claims being repudiated

Negligence on the part of the driver can often be the cause of an insurer declining a claim. The was a case reported in America where a gentleman having purchased a motor home, set off on a trip and once on the open road, engaged cruise control and left the controls to make a drink. His understanding of cruise control was that the vehicle drove on its own. Of course the insurance company declined to pay for the subsequent damage, after the vehicle crashed, however he was able to successfully sue the motor home manufacturer, claiming that they should have told him that cruise control doesn't drive the vehicle for you.

Content Provider http://www.traffichelp4u.com

More About Harvey Williams:
For more information about contract hire, lease purchase, finance lease or vehicle hire purchase in the UK please contact Bowater Price plc 01494 536 536.

If you enjoy this article please take the time to rate it, or share it at your favorite bookmarking network.

Print This Article