Car stolen by son - advised not covered

amandar74

My son stole my 3 month old car worth £27,000 whilst I was asleep and crashed it and wrote it off. I reported it to the police immediately and he has been in court and punished. I have just been advised by my insurance company that as he is a member of my family I am not covered. I have just read through the point that the insurers mentioned and they refer to an exclusion under loss or damage, this says

"Loss or damage caused intentionally by You or any member of Your family or loss or damage someone else caused with Your permission or encouragement. "

The car was on contract hire by my company but I had insured it personally and explained all of the circumstances to the insurance company when I signed up.

Can this be correct I was never made aware of this and it seems very vague. I feel that although I am the victim I am being punished because he is related to me.

FlameCloud

Does he live with you? Policies usually define 'your family' to mean people living with you.

Morph4610

Amandar - think this is a standard clause simply because family members have easy access to car keys and vehicles. Otherwise family members could cause damage and create payouts at will (if customers decided they needed some cash). Sorry

themull1

So what the insurance company is accusing you of is getting your son to write off the car, so you can claim the money. I think that you should appeal.

amandar74

Yes he does live me with me. As the car isn't owned by me but the lease company do you think I could say he's not related to the lease company?

FlameCloud

You need to look in the definitions section of your policy, as 'Your Family' will be stated. It is normally based on the policyholder - which i would assume is you?

amandar74

Yes it does state that You/Your is the policy holder. There is not a definition for family.

Quentin

He is your son, and lives with you. You will have a hard job denying he is in your "family"!

amandar74

I know that, it just seems unfair that as I am the victim I never thought that small print like this would exist. I now may have to find £27k for something I had no control over.

Quentin

The small print (or similar) is usual in motor policies.

Why isn't your son the one who will ultimately have to find the money?

antrobus

The exclusion clause states;

amandar74 wrote: »

"Loss or damage caused intentionally by You or any member of Your family ..."

Is there any evidence that you son intentionally crashed the car?

amandar74 wrote: »

... or loss or damage someone else caused with Your permission or encouragement. "

Is there any evidence that you gave any permission or encouraged your son to damage the car?

As the man said;

themull1 wrote: »

So what the insurance company is accusing you of is getting your son to write off the car, so you can claim the money. I think that you should appeal.

Therefore you need to explain to the insurance company (or argue if you like) that the exclusion clause does not apply.