Direct Line told me a few years ago that "social, domestic and pleasure" included travel to and from work but did NOT include travel on the employer's business once at work. For that additional business cover is needed.
Insurance companies are thieving bastards however and have doubtless changed it without telling anybody.
I have business cover myself so have no personal axe to grind. I do however have a pathological hatred of sharp practice and dishonesty in both business and personal matters.
Insurance Companies are deliberately opaque in their wording which enables them to wriggle out of their responsibilities safe in the knowledge that firstly the Financial Ombudsman will take forever and generally find in their favour for reasons of self- preservation since they, banks etc pay for it and secondly most ordinary punters are unable to afford to take the necessary legal action to bring the slippery bastards to account!
I'm not a supporter of insurance companies generally but, actually, the motor policy documents are not deliberatly opaque. They are deliberately, entirely and utterly precise. They are this way because the insurers know that they have to meet the Financial Services Authority's specific conduct of business rules and, indeed, the over-arching "treating customers fairly" regime which includes communicating with customers in a way which is "clear, fair and not misleading". To do otherwise would be to risk blowing absolutely all referrals to the Financial Ombudsman and would probably result in a hefty fine too.
I have little sympathy with people that take out a financial contract without taking the trouble to actually confirm that it's a product they want and actually meets their needs. How is this difficult?
When dealing with these filthy insurance companies your reason for travel should always be stated as:
"going for petrol" or "going shopping"
That will teach them to try and squirm out of payment.
Teenagers are being asked for £2000 a year insurance premiums, but only being fined £75 by the courts for no insurance - you can see the maths.
So the number of uninsured drivers goes up, so we all have to pay higher premiums and the "legal cover" (whatever that means) that is added to the policy.
These companies need properly regulating......sending out automatic renewals in the hope that you don't notice the cost has doubled.
You finding an cheaper alternative quote, and being told they are part of the same company and will "match it".
Being asked about your personal driving and criminal history - but them tying the no claims discount to a particular vehicle rather than each individual - nonsense
Being asked what mileage you cover - only so they can increase the premium, never decrease for a "little old lady" light user.
I have a friend with a car and a policy in Spain and he pays £400 a year fully comp, any driver over 25.
Direct Line told me a few years ago that "social, domestic and pleasure" included travel to and from work but did NOT include travel on the employer's business once at work. For that additional business cover is needed.
Insurance companies are thieving bastards however and have doubtless changed it without telling anybody.
I have business cover myself so have no personal axe to grind. I do however have a pathological hatred of sharp practice and dishonesty in both business and personal matters.
Insurance Companies are deliberately opaque in their wording which enables them to wriggle out of their responsibilities safe in the knowledge that firstly the Financial Ombudsman will take forever and generally find in their favour for reasons of self- preservation since they, banks etc pay for it and secondly most ordinary punters are unable to afford to take the necessary legal action to bring the slippery bastards to account!
I have little sympathy with people that take out a financial contract without taking the trouble to actually confirm that it's a product they want and actually meets their needs. How is this difficult?
I think this is a good point, and coupled with the one somebody made earlier of speaking to a broker to get somebody who is an "expert" to take you through the pitfalls is good advice.
The challenge these days is that many brokers have pretty much given up the pretence to giving advice on these things because they are trying to compete with the online "bucket shops" . Sadly we reap what we sow.
Just checked my own certificate. Here's the wording: "Limitations as to use: Social, domestic and pleasure excluding travel between home and permanent place of business and use in connection with this driver's business." That's as clear as can be isn't it?
Just checked my own certificate. Here's the wording: "Limitations as to use: Social, domestic and pleasure excluding travel between home and permanent place of business and use in connection with this driver's business." That's as clear as can be isn't it?
But haven't we established that not all insurance companies are as clear and precise in their questions and requests, bing has alluded to this..........come on, my friend is a teacher, well educated and no fool but yes she has made a fundamental mistake, which anyone can do....particularly those of us who are a bit older than average who haven't kept up with or noticed the new methods....in our day fully comp pretty much meant just that....fully comp. If just one or two folk who read this thread go and check their policy and find that they're not covered in the way they thought they were then this will have all been worth the effort. A very interesting thread on a quite boring subject is how I'd describe it and thanks to one and all for your contributions.
Problem is it varies from insurance company to insurance company. I'm with LV and mine states that it does cover me for travel from home to one permanent place of business. If there'd been a way of turning off that option I would have taken it as I work from home.
So it really is a lottery, SDP isn't a standard term with a fixed meaning, it will vary from company to company, and therefore needs to be double checked.
The biggest issue is that if you get a quote from comparison site, there is no way to know which it is until far further down the purchase process. It may be something you have to hunt out in an obscure T&Cs link, buried in the insurers website (which you may never see if you go through a comparison site).
There really needs to be greater regulation of the insurance industry. We're all paying through the nose because of insurance companies selling our details to ambulance chasers (should be illegal), colluding with car hire and car repair firms to artificially inflate costs to the at-fault party (should be illegal), and a million other little scams, that mean I'm paying more for my insurance now, at the age of 35, living in Gravesend, with maximum no claims, than I was a decade ago, living in Greenwich, parking on streets where my car was broken into twice in 2 years and having zero no claims.
Would be interested to hear the use wording on your friends certificate
Read the paperwork that came when she took out the policy and it might outline what social domestic and pleasure represents or look up on the company's website, failing that has she sought legal advice.
Only happened a couple of days back....so not sure what she's planning...poor lass is really upset. She hasn't received anything in writing as yet and was given this info over the phone but she categoricaly 'was' informed that it did not cover her for journeys to and from her place of work. I think we need to remember that not all insurance companies nowadays have the same set of clear cut clauses in their cover re to and from work, business or social and domestic usage and the wording can be somewhat ambiguous. If there's a loophole they'll jump through it that's for sure.
If you start out with the understanding that Insuarnce Companies are crooks, you will be less likely to get caught out. A sad inditement on 21st Century Britain, but the same applies to most large companies. We are cash cows to them and they will get as much from us with as a little back as they can get away with!
Problem is it varies from insurance company to insurance company. I'm with LV and mine states that it does cover me for travel from home to one permanent place of business. If there'd been a way of turning off that option I would have taken it as I work from home.
I am not seeking to catch you out but you work from home, like me. What if you go to the Post Office or the bank, for example?
S D & P won't cover that, nor will commuting. You need a policy that covers you for business use. I realise you can lie if you had an accident but the bigger the accident the more scrutiny will come your way.
I insure my car for S D P and own business including commuting for my self and my wife who commutes.
The key is never to do single purpose trips. If I go to the bank, I do a bit of shopping too, if I go to the post-office (not particularly likely these days) then similar. I'm lucky in that my job doesn't really require me to make trips out. I do all my banking online or over the phone, etc.
I'm still pissed with my insurance company because some idiot drove into my open door, because it was a narrow road (well it is with my door open!) he actually swerved into my door to avoid an oncoming car, which made the damage look like the door was opened into him (neither insurance company could/would believe he swerved towards an open door). He claimed the door was opened into him, his insurance company obviously stood by him and my insurance company didn't fancy taking it to court as the balance of probabilities (all you need for a civil case) was against them (as again, the damage could only be caused by the door opening into him or him swerving into the open door, balance of probabilities would go against me).
Here's a tip, if you're involved in an accident, take copious photos before doing anything else, get witnesses details if you can, and don't trust the other party to be honest, they will cheat and lie to save a few quid on their premium, and they will succeed.
If you start out with the understanding that Insuarnce Companies are crooks, you will be less likely to get caught out. A sad inditement on 21st Century Britain, but the same applies to most large companies. We are cash cows to them and they will get as much from us with as a little back as they can get away with!
To be fair, I think they start out with the understanding that all their customers are crooks!
One of the reasons insurance is so expensive is because of all the "speculative" claims.
What you all need to remember is that there are loads of online comparison sites and they all sell on price. You can't demand the cheapest premium and then be surprised when you are not covered for everything.
The comparison sites deliberately quote the most basic cover when they are listed side by side, then one is 'invited' to pay much more for a policy that covers what one actually needs. If, at this point, one decides not to add in the 'extras' then one is not covered.
As had been mentioned above, there was a time when brokers would do all this for you, but in the cost cutting society that we live we make the mistake of believing that we don't need professionals to advise us, we can "Do it online and save a fortune!"
Sadly you pay for what you get and you get what you paid for. Under insuring saves money on a continuing basis and is cost effective right up to the point when you need to claim, then you lose all the savings you made and then some.
What you all need to remember is that there are loads of online comparison sites and they all sell on price. You can't demand the cheapest premium and then be surprised when you are not covered for everything.
The comparison sites deliberately quote the most basic cover when they are listed side by side, then one is 'invited' to pay much more for a policy that covers what one actually needs. If, at this point, one decides not to add in the 'extras' then one is not covered.
As had been mentioned above, there was a time when brokers would do all this for you, but in the cost cutting society that we live we make the mistake of believing that we don't need professionals to advise us, we can "Do it online and save a fortune!"
Sadly you pay for what you get and you get what you paid for. Under insuring saves money on a continuing basis and is cost effective right up to the point when you need to claim, then you lose all the savings you made and then some.
Sorry if this sounds harsh but I have many friends that have seen their incomes fall through the floor following these comparison sites. They are rarely cheaper for like for like cover, but as a professional you can't 'mislead' a client into taking less cover than they need, and you can't sell a full policy for the same price as a web site that gives no advice, but 'encourages' the client to underinsure.
Teenagers are being asked for £2000 a year insurance premiums, but only being fined £75 by the courts for no insurance - you can see the maths.
So they should charge them £74? Despite the fact they are a company trying to make a profit?
If the teenagers go uninsured it's they are the one at fault, not the insurance company - those teenagers have got a choice between paying the high premium, or not having a (usually unnecessary for work etc at that age) car.
As for saying insurers "try and squirm out of payment", apart from beign grammatically wrong, it's simply not true - as Tom has said above, they have to be able to show to the FSA that they have acted fairly. If you pay them to be insured to drive to work, to drive 5,000 miles a year only etc and you do, you'll get paid out, simple.
If you try to say you do less miles, I don't think you can complain if they find out and charge you an additional premium for what you should have been charged. If you say you won't use it to commute, it's cheaper becuase they aren't covdering you to do so, how can you complain when they do exactly that?
I know it isn't black and white, and the areas of grey are what the likes of the ombudsman and FSA are for. But if you want to be covered for more than you've asked when taking out the policy (and had a wuote based on), you're the one trying to squirm out of payment, in my opinion.
Teenagers are being asked for £2000 a year insurance premiums, but only being fined £75 by the courts for no insurance - you can see the maths.
So they should charge them £74? Despite the fact they are a company trying to make a profit?
If the teenagers go uninsured it's they are the one at fault, not the insurance company - those teenagers have got a choice between paying the high premium, or not having a (usually unnecessary for work etc at that age) car.
As for saying insurers "try and squirm out of payment", apart from beign grammatically wrong, it's simply not true - as Tom has said above, they have to be able to show to the FSA that they have acted fairly. If you pay them to be insured to drive to work, to drive 5,000 miles a year only etc and you do, you'll get paid out, simple.
If you try to say you do less miles, I don't think you can complain if they find out and charge you an additional premium for what you should have been charged. If you say you won't use it to commute, it's cheaper becuase they aren't covdering you to do so, how can you complain when they do exactly that?
I know it isn't black and white, and the areas of grey are what the likes of the ombudsman and FSA are for. But if you want to be covered for more than you've asked when taking out the policy (and had a wuote based on), you're the one trying to squirm out of payment, in my opinion.
LOL - greenhouse, stone throwing cover is available online
Insurance companies are money grabbing cheating bastards that continually re-define everyday occurrences in order to squirm out of payment, by applying their own definitions.
i know of a guy who had his granite kitchen worktop unfixed from its housing and stolen - only for the insurers to deem it as "contents" not "buildings".
And generally speaking the grammar in their policies is atrocious !
Here's a tip, if you're involved in an accident, take copious photos before doing anything else, get witnesses details if you can, and don't trust the other party to be honest, they will cheat and lie to save a few quid on their premium, and they will succeed.
This.
I was carved up by a huge scrap steel lorry last july. it carved open my defender like a can of beans and ripped the galvanised steel bumper in half (not easy if you've seen one up close). the driver failed to stop until i got in front of him and 'made him stop'. he claimed he never saw it happen and didn't know anything about it despite my pointing to a wrecked front end. he said he'd give me a ring at the next stop and refusedto give details of his emoployer or contact details.
as randy said, i photographed him, his lorry, the marks on the kerb where my car was slammed into, the position of the accident from both angles etc. the driver's insurance company refused to budge for almost 8 months until my insurer forwarded all the photo's of the scene, including the paint and scratch marks down the side of his trailer. a cheque wassoon in the post. i wouldn't mind but i hadn't claimed for a hire car or personal injury. i drove the car around as it was until i sourced all the parts and fixed it myself.
The best advice is always take photo's at the scene including the driver. i even took his phone and rang mine so i'd got his phone number and his driver's licence details. people can try to wriggle out of a claim if they think they are going to be hit in their wallets so beware.
The problem with every one idiot that (Len) that feels that insurers take the piss is that there are 20 others that will do worse
Most London Market underwriters are losing money in motor business because if the no win no fee environmentthat we are in
The company that I work for are roughly losing £10m a year on motor business
If we didn't have so many poss takers in this country then we wouldall save 100 plus a year but we don't but please don't blame the underwriter on stuff you know nothing about
The key is never to do single purpose trips. If I go to the bank, I do a bit of shopping too, if I go to the post-office (not particularly likely these days) then similar. I'm lucky in that my job doesn't really require me to make trips out. I do all my banking online or over the phone, etc.
I'm still pissed with my insurance company because some idiot drove into my open door, because it was a narrow road (well it is with my door open!) he actually swerved into my door to avoid an oncoming car, which made the damage look like the door was opened into him (neither insurance company could/would believe he swerved towards an open door). He claimed the door was opened into him, his insurance company obviously stood by him and my insurance company didn't fancy taking it to court as the balance of probabilities (all you need for a civil case) was against them (as again, the damage could only be caused by the door opening into him or him swerving into the open door, balance of probabilities would go against me).
Here's a tip, if you're involved in an accident, take copious photos before doing anything else, get witnesses details if you can, and don't trust the other party to be honest, they will cheat and lie to save a few quid on their premium, and they will succeed.
Recently been to court for an accident when a bloke towing a trailer struck my stationary vehicle when passing in two columns of traffic.
He tried intimidating me, my wife, he claimed that I would be personally liable for the cost of the vehicle loaned to me and generally was totally obstructive.
It was always going to be likely to be a 50/50 as neither of us had witnesses. Unfortunately for me, I had a £500 excess, and he had no damage to his vehicle and for a long period he represented himself so his insurer was never going to off me half my excess back. Hence I took him to court.
The Judge found us both 50% responsible so he/his insurers had to pay 50% of my costs which I was content with.
It turns out that he was a director of an insurance brokerage and clearly thought he could scare me off. Shame he picked the wrong bloke.
His whole testimony was a pack of lies, unfortunately without an independent witness, I couldn't pin the whole thing on him.
It was an interesting process.
Yes I had a fault claim registered against me but I have a protected bonus so that was OK
Teenagers are being asked for £2000 a year insurance premiums, but only being fined £75 by the courts for no insurance - you can see the maths.
So they should charge them £74? Despite the fact they are a company trying to make a profit?
Of course not. The argument is that the courts should fine people more than the cost of insurance, otherwise there's really no incentive, other than a moral one, to pay up. Imagine if the penalty fare on the trains was £2. How many would buy a ticket?
The fines are out of step - I have experience of this - a car crashed into out front garden writing off my son's car. The offending car was owned by the brother of the driver and the driver had apparently taken the car without bro's permission. I can't remember what the fine was, but it was nowhere near what it would cost to insure a 19 year-old on a BMW.
The problem with every one idiot that (Len) that feels that insurers take the piss is that there are 20 others that will do worse
Most London Market underwriters are losing money in motor business because if the no win no fee environmentthat we are in
The company that I work for are roughly losing £10m a year on motor business
If we didn't have so many poss takers in this country then we wouldall save 100 plus a year but we don't but please don't blame the underwriter on stuff you know nothing about
Social domestic and pleasure has traditionally included travel to and from work. The logic, according to a (now retired) friend of mine from CT Bowring, following that of the Inland Revenue (as they were) who disallow travel to and from work as a business expense.
As I demonstrated with a link that is still the case with established companies such as Direct Line.
However some other insurance companies (whether under the instructions of underwriters or not) have surreptitiously changed that well understood and established principle which, in my opinion, is morally wrong, misleading and done purely to evade obligations.
I'm sorry that your company is losing money but the response of calling disenchanted consumers idiots who don't know what they are talking about speaks far more eloquently about the moral standards and professionalism (or lack thereof) of the insurance industry than I can.
The problem with every one idiot that (Len) that feels that insurers take the piss is that there are 20 others that will do worse
Most London Market underwriters are losing money in motor business because if the no win no fee environmentthat we are in
The company that I work for are roughly losing £10m a year on motor business
If we didn't have so many poss takers in this country then we wouldall save 100 plus a year but we don't but please don't blame the underwriter on stuff you know nothing about
Social domestic and pleasure has traditionally included travel to and from work. The logic, according to a (now retired) friend of mine from CT Bowring, following that of the Inland Revenue (as they were) who disallow travel to and from work as a business expense.
As I demonstrated with a link that is still the case with established companies such as Direct Line.
However some other insurance companies (whether under the instructions of underwriters or not) have surreptitiously changed that well understood and established principle which, in my opinion, is morally wrong, misleading and done purely to evade obligations.
I'm sorry that your company is losing money but the response of calling disenchanted consumers idiots who don't know what they are talking about speaks far more eloquently about the moral standards and professionalism (or lack thereof) of the insurance industry than I can.
This is 'exactly' how she got caught out Len....as I said before, things change and those of us of advanced years have to be sharp to notice these changes....I must admit I'd have assumed fully comp automatically covered me for travel to and from work....I've certainly learned something in the last day or two and I hope a few others have too.
The problem with every one idiot that (Len) that feels that insurers take the piss is that there are 20 others that will do worse
Most London Market underwriters are losing money in motor business because if the no win no fee environmentthat we are in
The company that I work for are roughly losing £10m a year on motor business
If we didn't have so many poss takers in this country then we wouldall save 100 plus a year but we don't but please don't blame the underwriter on stuff you know nothing about
Social domestic and pleasure has traditionally included travel to and from work. The logic, according to a (now retired) friend of mine from CT Bowring, following that of the Inland Revenue (as they were) who disallow travel to and from work as a business expense.
As I demonstrated with a link that is still the case with established companies such as Direct Line.
However some other insurance companies (whether under the instructions of underwriters or not) have surreptitiously changed that well understood and established principle which, in my opinion, is morally wrong, misleading and done purely to evade obligations.
I'm sorry that your company is losing money but the response of calling disenchanted consumers idiots who don't know what they are talking about speaks far more eloquently about the moral standards and professionalism (or lack thereof) of the insurance industry than I can.
This is 'exactly' how she got caught out Len....as I said before, things change and those of us of advanced years have to be sharp to notice these changes....I must admit I'd have assumed fully comp automatically covered me for travel to and from work....I've certainly learned something in the last day or two and I hope a few others have too.
But the thing is, if her current insurer's changed their stance the SD&P covered commuting and now doesn't they would have written to her, if she didn't bother to read the changes then that is her fault. If she changed insurer's recently and didn't bother to read what the policy covered, again that is her fault. Negligence is not an excuse.
The problem with every one idiot that (Len) that feels that insurers take the piss is that there are 20 others that will do worse
Most London Market underwriters are losing money in motor business because if the no win no fee environmentthat we are in
The company that I work for are roughly losing £10m a year on motor business
If we didn't have so many poss takers in this country then we wouldall save 100 plus a year but we don't but please don't blame the underwriter on stuff you know nothing about
Social domestic and pleasure has traditionally included travel to and from work. The logic, according to a (now retired) friend of mine from CT Bowring, following that of the Inland Revenue (as they were) who disallow travel to and from work as a business expense.
As I demonstrated with a link that is still the case with established companies such as Direct Line.
However some other insurance companies (whether under the instructions of underwriters or not) have surreptitiously changed that well understood and established principle which, in my opinion, is morally wrong, misleading and done purely to evade obligations.
I'm sorry that your company is losing money but the response of calling disenchanted consumers idiots who don't know what they are talking about speaks far more eloquently about the moral standards and professionalism (or lack thereof) of the insurance industry than I can.
This is 'exactly' how she got caught out Len....as I said before, things change and those of us of advanced years have to be sharp to notice these changes....I must admit I'd have assumed fully comp automatically covered me for travel to and from work....I've certainly learned something in the last day or two and I hope a few others have too.
But the thing is, if her current insurer's changed their stance the SD&P covered commuting and now doesn't they would have written to her, if she didn't bother to read the changes then that is her fault. If she changed insurer's recently and didn't bother to read what the policy covered, again that is her fault. Negligence is not an excuse.
SD&P has historically included commuting. It is a well understood term. If insurance companies want to change that well understood term to exclude commuting then that should be explicitly stated before the policy is signed, not buried in hard to find T&Cs. It's no good including it on the insurance certificate, as that is after the fact. This is classic bait and switch and shouldn't be allowed.
Imagine if I was a car dealer, and I advertised prices as "On the road", but buried in my T&Cs, that you have to request a copy of, I actually have a slightly different interpretation of what "On the road" means, and it results in you getting a nice bill from the tax man (my "On the road" doesn't include initial registration). Would you go "Oh well, should have read the T&Cs", of course not, I'd have taken a well understood term and changed it to my advantage (in this case allowing me to advertise a lower price).
Plenty of people know that it doesn't always include commuting.
It's not like its hidden in the t&c's either, if you buy online you usually have two options one saying SD&P and the other saying SD&P including commuting, to me that seems fairly straightforward, even without reading the policy I could probably make a good guess that the one without commuting doesn't cover me when I commute. If you buy through a broker then he (or she) should be asking you whether you need the policy to cover you for commuting, if they don't then they are probably guilty of mis-selling.
Like I said negligence is not an excuse, if you don't understand something you can always contact the insurer or there is this magical thing called google.
Comments
They are deliberately, entirely and utterly precise. They are this way because the insurers know that they have to meet the Financial Services Authority's specific conduct of business rules and, indeed, the over-arching "treating customers fairly" regime which includes communicating with customers in a way which is "clear, fair and not misleading". To do otherwise would be to risk blowing absolutely all referrals to the Financial Ombudsman and would probably result in a hefty fine too.
I have little sympathy with people that take out a financial contract without taking the trouble to actually confirm that it's a product they want and actually meets their needs. How is this difficult?
"going for petrol" or "going shopping"
That will teach them to try and squirm out of payment.
Teenagers are being asked for £2000 a year insurance premiums, but only being fined £75 by the courts for no insurance - you can see the maths.
So the number of uninsured drivers goes up, so we all have to pay higher premiums and the "legal cover" (whatever that means) that is added to the policy.
These companies need properly regulating......sending out automatic renewals in the hope that you don't notice the cost has doubled.
You finding an cheaper alternative quote, and being told they are part of the same company and will "match it".
Being asked about your personal driving and criminal history - but them tying the no claims discount to a particular vehicle rather than each individual - nonsense
Being asked what mileage you cover - only so they can increase the premium, never decrease for a "little old lady" light user.
I have a friend with a car and a policy in Spain and he pays £400 a year fully comp, any driver over 25.
The challenge these days is that many brokers have pretty much given up the pretence to giving advice on these things because they are trying to compete with the online "bucket shops" . Sadly we reap what we sow.
If just one or two folk who read this thread go and check their policy and find that they're not covered in the way they thought they were then this will have all been worth the effort.
A very interesting thread on a quite boring subject is how I'd describe it and thanks to one and all for your contributions.
So it really is a lottery, SDP isn't a standard term with a fixed meaning, it will vary from company to company, and therefore needs to be double checked.
The biggest issue is that if you get a quote from comparison site, there is no way to know which it is until far further down the purchase process. It may be something you have to hunt out in an obscure T&Cs link, buried in the insurers website (which you may never see if you go through a comparison site).
There really needs to be greater regulation of the insurance industry. We're all paying through the nose because of insurance companies selling our details to ambulance chasers (should be illegal), colluding with car hire and car repair firms to artificially inflate costs to the at-fault party (should be illegal), and a million other little scams, that mean I'm paying more for my insurance now, at the age of 35, living in Gravesend, with maximum no claims, than I was a decade ago, living in Greenwich, parking on streets where my car was broken into twice in 2 years and having zero no claims.
S D & P won't cover that, nor will commuting. You need a policy that covers you for business use. I realise you can lie if you had an accident but the bigger the accident the more scrutiny will come your way.
I insure my car for S D P and own business including commuting for my self and my wife who commutes.
I'm still pissed with my insurance company because some idiot drove into my open door, because it was a narrow road (well it is with my door open!) he actually swerved into my door to avoid an oncoming car, which made the damage look like the door was opened into him (neither insurance company could/would believe he swerved towards an open door). He claimed the door was opened into him, his insurance company obviously stood by him and my insurance company didn't fancy taking it to court as the balance of probabilities (all you need for a civil case) was against them (as again, the damage could only be caused by the door opening into him or him swerving into the open door, balance of probabilities would go against me).
Here's a tip, if you're involved in an accident, take copious photos before doing anything else, get witnesses details if you can, and don't trust the other party to be honest, they will cheat and lie to save a few quid on their premium, and they will succeed.
One of the reasons insurance is so expensive is because of all the "speculative" claims.
The comparison sites deliberately quote the most basic cover when they are listed side by side, then one is 'invited' to pay much more for a policy that covers what one actually needs. If, at this point, one decides not to add in the 'extras' then one is not covered.
As had been mentioned above, there was a time when brokers would do all this for you, but in the cost cutting society that we live we make the mistake of believing that we don't need professionals to advise us, we can "Do it online and save a fortune!"
Sadly you pay for what you get and you get what you paid for. Under insuring saves money on a continuing basis and is cost effective right up to the point when you need to claim, then you lose all the savings you made and then some.
That states how will the care be used:
Social, Domestic and Pleasure does not mean The same as SD&P and commute to one or more places of work.
If the teenagers go uninsured it's they are the one at fault, not the insurance company - those teenagers have got a choice between paying the high premium, or not having a (usually unnecessary for work etc at that age) car.
As for saying insurers "try and squirm out of payment", apart from beign grammatically wrong, it's simply not true - as Tom has said above, they have to be able to show to the FSA that they have acted fairly. If you pay them to be insured to drive to work, to drive 5,000 miles a year only etc and you do, you'll get paid out, simple.
If you try to say you do less miles, I don't think you can complain if they find out and charge you an additional premium for what you should have been charged. If you say you won't use it to commute, it's cheaper becuase they aren't covdering you to do so, how can you complain when they do exactly that?
I know it isn't black and white, and the areas of grey are what the likes of the ombudsman and FSA are for. But if you want to be covered for more than you've asked when taking out the policy (and had a wuote based on), you're the one trying to squirm out of payment, in my opinion.
Insurance companies are money grabbing cheating bastards that continually re-define everyday occurrences in order to squirm out of payment, by applying their own definitions.
i know of a guy who had his granite kitchen worktop unfixed from its housing and stolen - only for the insurers to deem it as "contents" not "buildings".
And generally speaking the grammar in their policies is atrocious !
I was carved up by a huge scrap steel lorry last july. it carved open my defender like a can of beans and ripped the galvanised steel bumper in half (not easy if you've seen one up close). the driver failed to stop until i got in front of him and 'made him stop'. he claimed he never saw it happen and didn't know anything about it despite my pointing to a wrecked front end. he said he'd give me a ring at the next stop and refusedto give details of his emoployer or contact details.
as randy said, i photographed him, his lorry, the marks on the kerb where my car was slammed into, the position of the accident from both angles etc. the driver's insurance company refused to budge for almost 8 months until my insurer forwarded all the photo's of the scene, including the paint and scratch marks down the side of his trailer. a cheque wassoon in the post. i wouldn't mind but i hadn't claimed for a hire car or personal injury. i drove the car around as it was until i sourced all the parts and fixed it myself.
The best advice is always take photo's at the scene including the driver. i even took his phone and rang mine so i'd got his phone number and his driver's licence details. people can try to wriggle out of a claim if they think they are going to be hit in their wallets so beware.
Most London Market underwriters are losing money in motor business because if the no win no fee environmentthat we are in
The company that I work for are roughly losing £10m a year on motor business
If we didn't have so many poss takers in this country then we wouldall save 100 plus a year but we don't but please don't blame the underwriter on stuff you know nothing about
He tried intimidating me, my wife, he claimed that I would be personally liable for the cost of the vehicle loaned to me and generally was totally obstructive.
It was always going to be likely to be a 50/50 as neither of us had witnesses. Unfortunately for me, I had a £500 excess, and he had no damage to his vehicle and for a long period he represented himself so his insurer was never going to off me half my excess back. Hence I took him to court.
The Judge found us both 50% responsible so he/his insurers had to pay 50% of my costs which I was content with.
It turns out that he was a director of an insurance brokerage and clearly thought he could scare me off. Shame he picked the wrong bloke.
His whole testimony was a pack of lies, unfortunately without an independent witness, I couldn't pin the whole thing on him.
It was an interesting process.
Yes I had a fault claim registered against me but I have a protected bonus so that was OK
As I demonstrated with a link that is still the case with established companies such as Direct Line.
However some other insurance companies (whether under the instructions of underwriters or not) have surreptitiously changed that well understood and established principle which, in my opinion, is morally wrong, misleading and done purely to evade obligations.
I'm sorry that your company is losing money but the response of calling disenchanted consumers idiots who don't know what they are talking about speaks far more eloquently about the moral standards and professionalism (or lack thereof) of the insurance industry than I can.
Imagine if I was a car dealer, and I advertised prices as "On the road", but buried in my T&Cs, that you have to request a copy of, I actually have a slightly different interpretation of what "On the road" means, and it results in you getting a nice bill from the tax man (my "On the road" doesn't include initial registration). Would you go "Oh well, should have read the T&Cs", of course not, I'd have taken a well understood term and changed it to my advantage (in this case allowing me to advertise a lower price).
It's not like its hidden in the t&c's either, if you buy online you usually have two options one saying SD&P and the other saying SD&P including commuting, to me that seems fairly straightforward, even without reading the policy I could probably make a good guess that the one without commuting doesn't cover me when I commute. If you buy through a broker then he (or she) should be asking you whether you need the policy to cover you for commuting, if they don't then they are probably guilty of mis-selling.
Like I said negligence is not an excuse, if you don't understand something you can always contact the insurer or there is this magical thing called google.