car burst into flames !

tilly67

this is my 1st post o these forums but have been reading them for 2 years now .

my partner had a vw golf mk3 and was having trouble with a knocking noise so he asked his friend who was a time served mechanic (but now a bus driver ) to take his car to the garage for him to see if they could fix it. as my partner was at work.

on the way to the garage the car burst into flames and he was flagged down by another driver as there was flames coming form underneath the car. he jumped out of the car and the whole interior of the car cought fire. the fire brigade came and had to put out the fire. apparently the fuel pipe was leaking onto the exhaust which is what caused the fire. the car is a write off and it now has no interior and the outside of the car is damaged beyond repair.
my partner contacted his insurance co to be told that as he was not driving the car at the time they arent going to pay out. his mate who was driving contacted his insurance co and they say they are no going to pay out as he was not the registered keeper of the vehicle and it was an accident ! both the driver and my partner had fully comp insurance .
one of the insurance companies must pay surely ???
can anyone advise or give their oppinion . :mad:

Judas

No the insurers appear pretty much spot on.

The policy on the car covers the driver and not the friend presumably; the only claim here would be if they accepted it was a fire indepdent of any operation of the vehicle - which it wasnt - not sure how you would stand with arguing this one.

The friends insurer probably offers TP cover only.

Dangermac

Interesting one. I dont think that I agree with Judas.

If the car was in the garage for repair, and the vehicle caught fire, the car insurance policy would be expected to pay out (regardless of whether the garage had a motor trade policy or not).

I can see the insurer's point if this was an accident. But it wasnt. This should be a claim under the fire section of the policy.

Unless there is a specific exclusion, I cant see how it matters who was driving at the time (on the basis that this is a fire claim).

My recommendation would be:

1. Ask the insurer to point out the specific exclusion upon which they are refusing to pay this claim.

2. If they cant point out the exclusion I would ask to speak to the claims manager

3. If necessary, proceed via the insurer's complaints procedure and then to the FOS. I would recommend trying to resolve the problem without going down this route, as it can be very lengthy and time-consuming.

Hope this info helps

DM

raskazz

Who is the insurer of your partner's car?

tilly67

thanks for your replies .
we have written to the insurance company and appealed against their decision . they have said they are looking at the claim again and will let us know within 4 weeks .
we have also drafted a letter for the ombudsman to see if they can help .

darich

Dangermac wrote: »

Interesting one. I dont think that I agree with Judas.

If the car was in the garage for repair, and the vehicle caught fire, the car insurance policy would be expected to pay out (regardless of whether the garage had a motor trade policy or not).

I can see the insurer's point if this was an accident. But it wasnt. This should be a claim under the fire section of the policy.

Unless there is a specific exclusion, I cant see how it matters who was driving at the time (on the basis that this is a fire claim).

My recommendation would be:

1. Ask the insurer to point out the specific exclusion upon which they are refusing to pay this claim.

2. If they cant point out the exclusion I would ask to speak to the claims manager

3. If necessary, proceed via the insurer's complaints procedure and then to the FOS. I would recommend trying to resolve the problem without going down this route, as it can be very lengthy and time-consuming.

Hope this info helps

DM

I can see your argument but I think I'd be inclined to agree with Judas.
When a car is being driven under DOC extension, that policy takes "priority" (for want of a better word). The DOC extension only covers third party damage and since this wasn't third party, I can see why the insurers have declined to pay out.

Having said all that I'd still follow dangermac's advice and start an appeal.

I've checked my own RAC car insurance and it states -
General Exclusions
This policy does not insure
1 loss, damage, destruction, injury or liability:
1.1 arising while the car is being driven by any person not covered by your Certificate of Motor Insurance.....etc etc

In my case I think I'd be screwed....although I'd appeal it too.

StephenMarsh

Im afraid I also agree with Judas on this one unless there is something that can back you up within your own policy wording but by a third party driving your car you are essentially passing the responsibility of the car to that person.

If the "friend" crashed the car your own insurers would not pay out in the same instance a fire whilst "friend" was driving they wont pay out.

mattymoo

Seems clear cut to me.

Tilly's partners friend is not a named driver under the policy so no cover there.
The friend's policy only covers third party (TP) damage only under the DOC extension. this is not the same as TPFT which adds the fire and theft cover.

The friends should have been temporarily added to the policy (tilly's partners) to give fully comp cover.

Tilly - had the car been worked on recently by a garage and if so, did that work involve the fuel line or work on the underside of the car? Just wondering how the fuel line came to be broken / leaking and if so, by who?

Dangermac

darich wrote: »

I can see your argument but I think I'd be inclined to agree with Judas.
When a car is being driven under DOC extension, that policy takes "priority" (for want of a better word). The DOC extension only covers third party damage and since this wasn't third party, I can see why the insurers have declined to pay out.

Having said all that I'd still follow dangermac's advice and start an appeal.

I've checked my own RAC car insurance and it states -
General Exclusions
This policy does not insure
1 loss, damage, destruction, injury or liability:
1.1 arising while the car is being driven by any person not covered by your Certificate of Motor Insurance.....etc etc

In my case I think I'd be screwed....although I'd appeal it too.

It's an interesting one, that's for sure. I think that there is a very decent chance that either the insurer or the FOS will say that this claim should be met.

Even if the policy has an exclusion (similar to the RAC one above), the FOS will look at the spirit of the policy/exclusion as opposed to the actual words.

I dont agree that the DOC policy becomes the 'primary' policy because the DOC is simply indemnifying the driver in respect of 3rd party liability.

If the fire could have happened at any point (i.e either when the OP was driving, or when the 'DOC driver' was driving), then it is simply fortuitous that the loss happened at the time when the OP wasnt driving.

I think the spirit of any such exclusion (i.e like the RAC one above) is mainly to exclude Accidental Damage whilst a non-additional-driver is at the wheel.

I think that there's a 'lot of pool left in this game' before I would resign myself to the insurer not paying.

That's why it's always good to have a (good) broker to fight your corner in the event of a loss.

tilly67

hi there
there had been no recent work on the car so this couldnt be the cause of it catching fire.
the insurance co have sent a letter saying they will reply with a decision to the appeal in 30 days. we are not leaving it at their decision we are going to appeal to the ombudsman as someone is liable for this damage and we cannot be out of pocket for £2000 . its just not right at all .
will keep you updated . thanks guys .

raskazz

Why didn't you just add him to your policy as a temporary additional driver? Would've cost probably £20 and the loss would then have been covered. It's not your insurer's fault that you didn't take this precautionary measure.