Dear Members and subscribers,
I trust as always that my email finds you well and busy.
I have been provided some information from a trusted transport journalist and we need your help.
An operator, who has asked to remain anonymous at this time had a vehicle parked up overnight in a ‘secure’ parking area. Unfortunately during the night part of the load was stolen while the driver was asleep in the cab.
Naturally the operator’s first port of call was with his insurance provider and a claim was lodged with their insurance provider to cover the cost of the stolen goods, but in a strange turn of events the insurance company attempted to declined the claim, initially refusing to pay out.
The insurance provider had ruled that the vehicle was ‘unattended’ as per the insurance agreement signed by the operator.
The operator of course contested this ruling stating in his defence that “All the agreement states is that the insurer will not pay out for theft on an ‘unattended’ vehicle”.
The insurer then went on to advise the operator that a driver sleeping in the bunk of the cab was classed by them as unattended. The operator defend his claim by advising the insurance provider that there was no clear definition of ‘unattended’ listed within the insurance agreement.
Eventually the claim was settled, the operator quite rightly has now moved insurance provider this time ensuring that ‘unattended’ status was altered to show that a driver sleeping in their cab is not classed as ‘unattended’.
Most insurance policies it seems have this ‘unattended’ schedule written in without a proper definition, according to the operator.
How you can help
We would like to hear from any of our members or subscribers that have had a similar experience or that have a similarly undefined ‘unattended’ schedule written into your insurance policy.
Have you had a claim refused on this basis?
Does your current insurance policy have an unattended schedule set out in your policy?
If so, has the term ‘unattended’ been clearly defined?
If so, does the definition of ‘unattended’ include the driver sleeping in the cab.
In the meantime, may I advise you to take this opportunity to contact your insurance provider to ensure this important schedule is clearly defined and more importantly that the “unattended” schedule does not include your driver sleeping in the cab.
At least the day men can’t call us ‘Unpaid security guards’ again.
Way I see it when you park up the time is YOURS .
You can go where you like and even sleep where you like.
If firms are going to pay our hourly rate on a 24 hour basis, then I’ll sit in the cab all night …no probs.
Many’s the time, even the last few years i did night’s out, that the lorry may well be parked and the curtains drawn, but i would be in the land of nod in a small nearby hotel.
I don’t see the difference if there is a driver is in the bunk or not, unless very sure of themselves and what they were about to face, i doubt many of out flock would put themselves at risk of being on the receiving end of whatever some toe rag might have about their person and chance becoming a have a go statistic, depending on what the load was if anything i’d be more inclined to get quietly out of the bunk pull the curtains back fire up and bugger off (fears for my own safety), if said thief managed to get themselves dragged under the wheels and spread down the road, tough.
Pointless ringing the old bill at the time.
Sobering thought. Especially when I consider just how many fiddly nights out I have with the truck parked on a nearby industrial estate and me tucked up in my own bed.
Could open a whole can of worms potentially because if your company insist that you stay with the vehicle, even asleep in the bunk could we then insist on attendance pay over and above our night out money?
I’d never thought about this before but the dictionary definition of “unattended” that I found states “Not being watched or taken care of” so I suppose it could be agrued that a sleeping driver is not doing that. Tacho rules would of course forbid you from being in attendence if this meant proactively guarding the vehicle or load.
TruckerGuy:
I’m curious now - can it be required that you sleep in the cab, or not?
They could request I suppose, but requiring a driver to remain in the cab comes dangerously close to breaching the rules for a rest period in as much that a driver must be able to freely dispose of his/her time.
^^ might as well be serving a sentence, kept in solitary eating and doing the other in the cell, let out for an hour twice a day for supervised exercise, or interrogation (debrief).
Juddian:
^^ might as well be serving a sentence, kept in solitary eating and doing the other in the cell, let out for an hour twice a day for supervised exercise, or interrogation (debrief).
Don’t see what the problem is, from what I see 80% of ‘modern day trampers’ spend their entire nights cooped up in the cab in some ■■■■ hole lay by or another… .
As for 'requesting they can request wtf they like, …my 11 hours off are MINE, unless as I say they offer to pay me my hourly rate right through…and even then I’d be offering a compromise of hours spent asleep in my bunk, no way would I be sat in my cab all evening like some sad ■■■■ . especially in the summer.
Your insurer may have rejected your claim because they believe you left your vehicle unattended – but you insist you didn’t.
We’ll investigate the circumstances and ask for evidence such as CCTV footage and photos of the area. We’ll consider how close you were to your vehicle, and whether you could have done anything to prevent it being stolen.
If the vehicle was on private land, we’ll ask questions such as whether:
the vehicle was visible from a main road
the engine was running
the boot or doors were left open
If the vehicle wasn’t visible to other people, we might not agree with your insurer that it was unattended.
We’ll look at each individual case to decide what’s fair. If we think you had a good reason to leave your vehicle or were near enough to deter a thief, we’re likely to tell the insurer to pay the claim. We’ll also check whether your insurer clearly highlighted that leaving the vehicle could lead to a claim being rejected.
Way to many people getting far to far bent out of shape about this .
I drive a truck .
When I park up for my daily rest I have two choices - either park up in a SNAP accepted site or a parking place of my own choosing wether that be another truck stop , industrial estate or a layby.
Once I do that and press the rest button on the tacho the next 9 , 11 or longer hours are mine - what happens the load is between the owner of the truck and his insurers - it’s not my problem . I’ll be getting something to eat , a wash or a shower and watching a little tv , having a pint , taking a walk, going to the cinema , resturant - basicly whatever I choose to do . Night out money is not a contract to make me a security guard its a payment to compensate me for staying out for a night .If something happens through the night its a phonecall to the office / police in the morning for advice / instruction on what to do next . I get paid well but not well enough to be worrying about that sort of stuff . Plenty of others further up the "management chain " get very well paid to sort this sort of thing out and I’m happy to let them.
It sounds like its a you problem , not a me problem .
.
