Car stolen by son - advised not covered

amandar74

Quote wrote: »

I might have missed this, but when did it happen?

It happened on the 30th March and my son was convicted yesterday. The insurance company contacted me today to advise I was not covered.

thorsoak

amandar74 wrote: »

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.

This incident would not have happened had you exercised control over your son earlier:(

thorsoak

amandar74 wrote: »

I am not more dissapointed with the insurance company than my son I am just looking for advise on the insurance matter, which is why I posted on the insurance forum. My son is being dealt with as he should and as any other victim of a crime when I have paid my insurance premium to cover theft I expect to be paid out if I suffer a loss.

But we, as other policy holders with the insurance company, would have to bear the brunt of your son's illegal activity through higher premiums - would you consider that to be fair?

DCFC79

amandar74 wrote: »

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?

so lying is the next to try then

amandar74

thorsoak wrote: »

This incident would not have happened had you exercised control over your son earlier:(

My son is an 18 year old man past being controlled. Unfortunately peer pressure affects people in different ways. If I wanted parental advise I would have posted on the family forum. I do appreciated the insurance comments greatly.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

As usual, I read it differently.
It was theft of the call by a member of the family.
It wasn't intentional loss or damage if he intended to bring it back.
If he had took it and burnt it out maybe, but if he was joyriding it's worth asking the FOS to decide on it. Make a complaint to the insurer, and then to the FOS.

As to Quentin's kids being able to find £27K, he must have a different set of circumstances to mine.

I think that Mikey72 must have had a knock to the head. He is starting to talk sense in many of his recent posts.

Many car insurance policies do exclude damage following theft by family members. Indeed, this was probably the intention of your policy.

However, the wording of your policy seems sufficiently ambiguous for this to be challenged.

As you (and Mikey72) say, the car wasnt intentionally crashed by your son, and he didnt intent to permanently deprive you of it (as defined in law).

On this basis, with the policy exclusion being as sufficiently ambigous as it is, I feel that you should challenge the decision and proceed to the FOS and court if need be.

You need to be aware of a legal doctrine called 'contra preferentum' which basically means that the court will rule against the person who drafted the ambigous term in a contract. On this basis, I feel there is a decent chance of success for you.

Good luck.


Incidentally, if anyone ever wonders why a good broker is worth their weight in gold, as opposed to a 'call-centre type broker' or a direct insurer, it is the ability of them to help steer you out of difficult situations such as this. Certainly no guarantee of success, but a good broker would be fighting your corner hard.

Dangermac

amandar74

thorsoak wrote: »

But we, as other policy holders with the insurance company, would have to bear the brunt of your son's illegal activity through higher premiums - would you consider that to be fair?

Yes I am a victim of a theft, I would prefer not to continue this on this thread as I am looking for advise on insurance matters. Please feel free to open a moral debate elsewhere.

starrystarry

Can everyone stop having a go at the OP please? None of us know the full story behind the incident so we're in no position to judge her. And she did state in the original post that she reported it to the police. She shopped her son to the police. Can we not show a bit more sympathy?

I do think that the exclusion is probably enforceable I'm afraid. It wasn't well written but I think the intention was clear.

starrystarry

Dangermac wrote: »

I think that Mikey72 must have had a knock to the head. He is starting to talk sense in many of his recent posts.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

RuthnJasper

ILW wrote: »

It is not quite theft when the keys are left available for the thief to pick up at will.

This might be the point on which hangs the crux of the issue. Insurers could argue that if the keys were hanging up on the usual key-hook, or wherever the keys are generally stored, then their case might be that the keys were "made available" to the son.

Amandar - I am sorry that you have found yourself in this situation. It must be bad enough to go through the distress of a child (albeit a grown one) committing a crime and having to go to court - but to have the double-whammy of the crime actually being committed against you, leading also to the destruction of an expensive car, along with the insurance complications must be almost unbearable.

Hope things start looking up a bit for you soon. x