Company insurance claim

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
41

Rjan:
Even a JCB driver digging through a water main could be said to have an “accident”, but I maintain that the question “have you had any accidents?” asked by a car insurer does not refer to such things, and it does not refer to the OP’s circumstances (at least as he’s described them and I’ve interpreted them).

They have public liability for damage caused while using the JCB, not motor insurance, that is for driving :unamused:

By the OPs own admission, he says after the farmer said he hit the building he did “all the usual, and informed the office”.

Here I was insinuating the OP surely realised he would using his companies insurance to pay for damage he had caused, for some reason you seem to be saying as he was on a farm, and performing a tight manoeuvre this somehow indemnities him from damage without declaring that…

Rjan you are not seriously suggesting the vehicle is not insured for accidents on private land? Come on… Seriously :unamused:

You don’t need to be insured (or even licenced) to drive on private land, provided it is not a public place (where being in the bowels of a farm complex is probably not a public place).

No you don’t, you’re right, but that is not the statement I made, stop clouding the issue. :unamused:

42

This was on private property with the farmer acting as banksman. I’m sure if the farmer’s barn door had blown round in the wind, becasue he hadn’t secured it properly, and damaged the lorry then there would be no question of any insurance claim against him. Goose, gander etc.

43

F-reds:

Rjan:
Even a JCB driver digging through a water main could be said to have an “accident”, but I maintain that the question “have you had any accidents?” asked by a car insurer does not refer to such things, and it does not refer to the OP’s circumstances (at least as he’s described them and I’ve interpreted them).

They have public liability for damage caused while using the JCB, not motor insurance, that is for driving :unamused:

Insurance is for whatever loss it covers, and what the OP applied for in a personal capacity, has nothing to do with (and would not be applicable to) the tasks he was undertaking for his employer.

Also, you seem to miss the fact that the JCB, regardless of what insurance it is covered by (if any), is still involved in “an accident”. And consider that a JCB may well be involved in a manoeuvring accident, not just a digging accident.

You must surely accept my point, that even you interpret “accidents” to involve a certain kind of situation. You could be a passenger in a bus crash accident, but we would not think of this as a kind of “non-fault motoring accident” which needs to be declared to one’s own car insurer!

By the OPs own admission, he says after the farmer said he hit the building he did “all the usual, and informed the office”.

Here I was insinuating the OP surely realised he would using his companies insurance to pay for damage he had caused, for some reason you seem to be saying as he was on a farm, and performing a tight manoeuvre this somehow indemnities him from damage without declaring that…

The OP does not need to be concerned with how his employer deal with the matter. The OP strongly insinuates that he was relying upon the farmer to give signals, and the farmer failed to do so. The OP does not necessarily accept there was any negligence on his part. The fact that his employer (or the insurer) are prepared to see it as a cost of doing business without arguing over the matter, does not mean the OP takes any particular view on those situations. Without us knowing the cost of the damage, the insurer may not even have paid anything out - they may simply have recorded an incident reported to them.

You are far too ready to jump from the facts which was that the OP was involved in some minor damage whilst manoeuvring a HGV (it wouldn’t necessarily take much of a knock on some jerry-built tin sheds to cause joists to fall), to assuming that this is something that is obviously material to his own car insurance.

And even if it is material, you also jump too readily to the assumption that the insurer has asked a clear question. The OP makes it quite clear that a connection between the circumstances of the damage and the questions his car insurer asked never entered his head.

And I agree with him, that the insurer has almost certainly not asked him about this information. The fact that you think it should come under the catch-all term of “an accident”, is obviously not something you abide to consistently because you reject the idea that the JCB accident is relevant (and presumably you’d reject that involvement in an accident as a passenger or pedestrian is covered, either).

Rjan you are not seriously suggesting the vehicle is not insured for accidents on private land? Come on… Seriously :unamused:

You don’t need to be insured (or even licenced) to drive on private land, provided it is not a public place (where being in the bowels of a farm complex is probably not a public place).

No you don’t, you’re right, but that is not the statement I made, stop clouding the issue. :unamused:

Then what was the purpose of your statement?

44

I point you again to the quote I pulled from a comparison website. I think that satisfies your first two points.

I have also said that I don’t think this should impact on his personal insurance necessarily, but the insurance company has asked a question, he has (unintentionally) not provided the correct answer so they could ascertain whether this accident should have any bearing on his personal policy. The OP denied them that ability, and as such got stung for it, if he can cancel his policy he most certainly should and try again with a different insurer, this time declaring the accident to get an accurate quote.

Lastly the point I made about being insured on private land, was that as he was insured it would be the natural course to take by the farmer to recoup his losses. It’s up to the insurance company to fight the OPs point that as he was being banked somehow he isn’t responsible. Incidentally if I ran someone over while I was being banked, I wouldn’t somehow be not ultimately responsible, that’s why banksmen are mistrusted by lots of drivers, and why if I’m not 100% sure I get out and look for myself.

I don’t think I’m quick to jump to any conclusions really, certainly no more than you. The only conclusion I run to straight away is that the OP can’t read a form.

45

The OP actions from this point (whatever they choose) should be to ensure the insured doesn’t cancel the policy on them, as that’s yet another question generally on the form.

46

F-reds:
I point you again to the quote I pulled from a comparison website. I think that satisfies your first two points.

I don’t think it does. Firstly, they are not questions, and secondly, it would if anything enlarge the generality of a question like “have you had any accidents?”, rather than making it a series of more specific questions.

The insurer is not entitled to ask “have you had any burble burble?” and then elsewhere in a definition say “by burble burble, we mean anything”.

I also note the OP’s circumstances do not fall into the examples quoted by your information:

Road traffic accidents
Fire, flood or storm damage
Theft of or from a vehicle
Windscreen/glass claims

I have also said that I don’t think this should impact on his personal insurance necessarily, but the insurance company has asked a question, he has (unintentionally) not provided the correct answer

Who gets to define what a “correct answer” is? And has the insurer asked a specific question about the OP’s circumstances? It’s not enough for them to show that they have asked a general question, because they could just ask “has anything happened?”, and indeed, they will invariably be able to show that something (which fits the definition of “anything”) has happened which you didn’t mention and did not consider relevant or connected.

Lastly the point I made about being insured on private land, was that as he was insured it would be the natural course to take by the farmer to recoup his losses. It’s up to the insurance company to fight the OPs point that as he was being banked somehow he isn’t responsible.

No it isn’t! It isn’t up the employer’s insurer, who don’t even have a relationship with the OP, to start fighting the OP’s corner - the insurer are looking after their own interests alone, which may include settling any claim without resistance or detailed investigation.

Indeed, the employer could theoretically have an insurance policy which covers the farmer for such damage even if it’s the farmer’s negligence which caused it! Or more possibly, the employer may have reported the circumstances without his policy covering the incident at all.

Incidentally if I ran someone over while I was being banked, I wouldn’t somehow be not ultimately responsible, that’s why banksmen are mistrusted by lots of drivers, and why if I’m not 100% sure I get out and look for myself.

I don’t think I’m quick to jump to any conclusions really, certainly no more than you.

You are jumping to a conclusion now that a driver is always responsible for damage. That is not true in law. The driver is only responsible for his own negligence.

For example, if the vehicle experiences catastrophic failure which the driver couldn’t possibly have expected (i.e. not even with inspections or maintenance), and goes careering into other vehicles, that does not entitle third parties to recover from the driver or his insurer, because there is no negligence by anybody (except possibly the manufacturer). The third parties would all have to claim on their own comprehensive policies, if any. A lot of people I find are surprised at this.

A landowner who gives the wrong signals to the driver may himself be negligent, but it does not necessarily mean the driver is. The driver is entitled to rely on signals, the same as he is entitled to rely on a traffic light (and obviously signals from the landowner who knows his own premises, is familiar with the task, and is giving it his full attention, are reasonable for the driver to rely on).

The only conclusion I run to straight away is that the OP can’t read a form.

And even that conclusion is not necessary.

My general advice would be for people to stop acting as policemen or mouthpieces for the insurance industry, don’t take the insurer’s word for anything, and if you think something dodgy is going on, then challenge them.

47

Rjan:
No it isn’t! It isn’t up the employer’s insurer, who don’t even have a relationship with the OP, to start fighting the OP’s corner - the insurer are looking after their own interests alone, which may include settling any claim without resistance or detailed investigation.
Exactly the insurer I was referring to and you know it. The insurance he was operating under at the time “his” not his personal. But you knew that…

Incidentally if I ran someone over while I was being banked, I wouldn’t somehow be not ultimately responsible, that’s why banksmen are mistrusted by lots of drivers, and why if I’m not 100% sure I get out and look for myself.

I don’t think I’m quick to jump to any conclusions really, certainly no more than you.

You are jumping to a conclusion now that a driver is always responsible for damage. That is not true in law. The driver is only responsible for his own negligence.

For example, if the vehicle experiences catastrophic failure which the driver couldn’t possibly have expected (i.e. not even with inspections or maintenance), and goes careering into other vehicles, that does not entitle third parties to recover from the driver or his insurer, because there is no negligence by anybody (except possibly the manufacturer). The third parties would all have to claim on their own comprehensive policies, if any. A lot of people I find are surprised at this.

Absolutely agree with you, but again your example is unlike the OPs situation and as such does nothing but muddy the water.

A landowner who gives the wrong signals to the driver may himself be negligent, but it does not necessarily mean the driver is. The driver is entitled to rely on signals, the same as he is entitled to rely on a traffic light (and obviously signals from the landowner who knows his own premises, is familiar with the task, and is giving it his full attention, are reasonable for the driver to rely on).

Really? Come on… :unamused:

The only conclusion I run to straight away is that the OP can’t read a form.

And even that conclusion is not necessary.

My general advice would be for people to stop acting as policemen or mouthpieces for the insurance industry, don’t take the insurer’s word for anything, and if you think something dodgy is going on, then challenge them.

Once again I agree. Perhaps you should take your own advice, as you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

I’ll go the way of Harry, I’ve had my say, I’ll let others decide if your rambling are correct.

48

F-reds:

Rjan:
No it isn’t! It isn’t up the employer’s insurer, who don’t even have a relationship with the OP, to start fighting the OP’s corner - the insurer are looking after their own interests alone, which may include settling any claim without resistance or detailed investigation.
Exactly the insurer I was referring to and you know it. The insurance he was operating under at the time “his” not his personal. But you knew that…

It doesn’t matter. The essence of my point is that no insurer is obliged (in any effective way) to put the driver’s interests before their own, or the truth ahead of their finances. They’re not going to deploy a crack team of detectives or put the matter to a judge and jury, on an insurance claim that may not even reach the policy excess! Some twenty year old call handler just makes the judgment they alone deem appropriate.

And as you say, we’ve had our say on the rest, and I’m glad to see you agree with a great deal of what you call my “ramblings”.

49

Rjan:
You are jumping to a conclusion now that a driver is always responsible for damage. That is not true in law. The driver is only responsible for his own negligence.

I think you’re confusing the insurer’s question concerning any ‘accidents’ with any non fault accidents.IE the insurer doesn’t give a zb whether the driver is to blame for any of the ‘accidents’ in question or not.In which case it’s quite possible to find yourself loaded with a premium penalty even if the ‘accident/s’ in question were someone else’s fault and even if the other party’s insurers covered all the costs involving no loss of no claims bonus and regardless of whether you were driving the employer’s truck at the time of the ‘accident’. :bulb:

50

anyone else got an opinion now before yet anther thread fades into a 2 poster monologue ■■..going,going… :confused:

51

So there we go then. Insurance fraud is perfectly acceptable unless specifically asked the exact circumstances of an incident involed in.

52

m_attt:
So there we go then. Insurance fraud is perfectly acceptable unless specifically asked the exact circumstances of an incident involed in.

Yes 100% right and you can make a “Collateral” lie to your insurance company and they can`t spoil you claim.

Rjan your getting alot of stick from the the desktop lawyers but you are making sense. To me anyway.

Is was a ruling from the highest court in are land. This overrules any silly rules insurance companies have,

53

m_attt:
So there we go then. Insurance fraud is perfectly acceptable unless specifically asked the exact circumstances of an incident involed in.

It isn’t insurance fraud to take out a policy whilst answering all questions honestly and reasonably.

I’m not saying the exact circumstances have to be asked, but I’ve already said enough to rebut such silly caricature.

It might suffice to ask “have you been involved in any damage occurring whilst you were at the wheel of an employer’s vehicle?”. That leaves little doubt that the insurer is asking a specific question about your work. If they don’t ask, then there’s no obligation to second-guess them, it’s as simple as that - and all it effectively would have meant for the OP, is that he got insurance at the normal price that most of us consider reasonable for his circumstances, not that he’s concealing a history of criminal recklessness at the wheel of his own car.

Indeed, it’s high time people wake up to the fact that insurers (particularly in Britain) are just robber barons who will give you any old blarney about being a “high risk fraudster” just so you’re intimidated into paying a double or triple the premium you should pay!

54

Wonder if the OP got his insurance sorted out.

55

weeto:
Wonder if the OP got his insurance sorted out.

Yes I got my insurance sorted out. I cancelled the insurance I had, and ended up getting it cheaper than the original price. That was with me declaring the claim and with another company. Don’t know how that works but I’m happy with that.

56

If all ofthose joists were dislodged while the lorry was going very slowly there must have been alot of nothing holding the roof up in the first place.The insurers are within their rights to cancel the policy abit zb but there you go.I think we should see pictures of the damage to the building and the lorry.Is this crash for cash??

57

Could anyone explain what is a Walking Floor Driver ?