Insurance get-out-clause

donboon

Can this be right? I recently moved to another vehicle insuarance company and while browsing through their policy I came across this: "What is not covered: Loss or damage to your vehicle if it is taken or driven without your permission by any member of your family or partner, anyone living in your home, or anyone known to you."
I know tens of thousands of people; Why the hell should I lose out just because I know someone?

vikingaero

If you have friends or family around, you are likely to leave your car keys lying around and they can be easily swiped.

cyberbob

donboon wrote: »

Can this be right? I recently moved to another vehicle insuarance company and while browsing through their policy I came across this: "What is not covered: Loss or damage to your vehicle if it is taken or driven without your permission by any member of your family or partner, anyone living in your home, or anyone known to you."
I know tens of thousands of people; Why the hell should I lose out just because I know someone?

Thsts standard in most policies

donboon

vikingaero wrote: »

If you have friends or family around, you are likely to leave your car keys lying around and they can be easily swiped.

Friends or family are one thing but the clause makes no distinction about those I know. It could mean anyone from my past even though they don't remember me or even know its my vehicle. The clause is far to general

maninthestreet

donboon wrote: »

Friends or family are one thing but the clause makes no distinction about those I know. It could mean anyone from my past even though they don't remember me or even know its my vehicle. The clause is far to general

So what are chances that someone who you knew only briefly years ago actually taking your car without your permission??

fluffnutter

donboon, do you really know tens of thousands of people? I'd struggle to name a thousand! Or even half of that.

donboon

maninthestreet wrote: »

So what are chances that someone who you knew only briefly years ago actually taking your car without your permission??

More to the point, why should an insurance underwriter think it necessary to include such persons if as you rightly imply the odds are slim. The rule simply means that if the underwriters discover any link between the two persons, regardless of the association or occassion, they can refuse to pay out or recover their money.
The condition in my view is not justifiable and needs to be examined under the "Unfair Policy" rules.

donboon

fluffnutter wrote: »

donboon, do you really know tens of thousands of people? I'd struggle to name a thousand! Or even half of that.

I've spent a long time in the Forces, travelled the world and chair numerous charitable organisations. In the town where I live I'm a local councillor and featured regularly in the local press and in forums across the country.
In 1971 I personally interviewed over 2000 servicemen in one year and I've attended and held hundreds of conferences with as you might imagine hundreds of people attending. I've been in busines over 40 years so have met quite a few there. No I can't recall all their names but the policy doesn't require that. All it states is that they are known to me. Are you getting the idea now?

OlliesDad

donboon wrote: »

I've spent a long time in the Forces, travelled the world and chair numerous charitable organisations. In the town where I live I'm a local councillor and featured regularly in the local press and in forums across the country.
In 1971 I personally interviewed over 2000 servicemen in one year and I've attended and held hundreds of conferences with as you might imagine hundreds of people attending. I've been in busines over 40 years so have met quite a few there. No I can't recall all their names but the policy doesn't require that. All it states is that they are known to me. Are you getting the idea now?

I think they are obviously referring to friends/colleagues rather than the anybody you have had a brief encounter with.

Why would this be an unfair policy? If you do not like it do not go with them. By all means take them to court, but it would be costly and without basis.

If on the otherhand you had a policy and they refused a claim as the person who had stolen your car once stood next to you in a bus queue, then you would have a case.

unholyangel

OlliesDad wrote: »

I think they are obviously referring to friends/colleagues rather than the anybody you have had a brief encounter with.

Why would this be an unfair policy? If you do not like it do not go with them. By all means take them to court, but it would be costly and without basis.

If on the otherhand you had a policy and they refused a claim as the person who had stolen your car once stood next to you in a bus queue, then you would have a case.

Well the phrasing implies someone who you know of, not someone in a position of trust (ie friend,family etc).

If that truly is the case, i'm well and truly ****ed seeing as everyone knows near enough everyone here! And we're not a tiny village, not a big city either but big enough to be considered a town :rotfl:

adam.mt

Agree, it's badly worded. Guess the condition is there to say they're not paying up if someone takes and damages your car that either you gave permission (or would give permission after the fact) to take it, ie. if you wouldn't wish to pursue them for theft and damage should the police catch them and refer on to the CPS. The idea being you can't loan you car out as a bumper car and then expect to claim!

But, as pointed out, knowing how some insurers work in theory they could try and use the clause to get out of making a payment. In that incidence though I'm sure any court would consider it an unfair clause.