Comprehensive car insurance policies not dealing with non-fault accident claims?

MrA2012

I just phoned Churchill Insurance for a comprehensive car insurance quote. When discussing details of their comprehensive cover, I was surprised to be told that they will not deal with claims for non-fault accidents. Apparently, if I was to have an accident that wasn't my fault (e.g. someone was to drive into my car while I was stationary) they would refuse to deal with the claim in any way and insist I claimed from the third party insurers directly. They would only be involved if the accident was my fault. They even tried to convince me that all insurance companies work this way, which I know from past experience is, or at least was, not the case.

Is this now common practice? Whenever I've had non-fault accidents in the past I've always phoned my own insurers and they have dealt with it on my behalf, claiming back the losses from the third party themselves, dealing with any disputes etc. Claiming directly from the third party insurers seems like it could open up a world of pain as they would be acting in their own interests and you'd be at their mercy. What if they did a shoddy repair job on my car to minimize their costs? What if I had trouble getting them to repay my losses? What would I have been paying my own insurance company for, exactly, if they were doing nothing to help me out or back me up?

What's the normal procedure these days for clear-cut non-fault accidents? Is it advisable to claim directly from the third party, and will some insurers really give you no option but to do so, even with comprehensive cover?

Have I used enough question marks in this post?

forgotmyname

Its usually better to deal with them directly, But its nice to know you can out it through your insurance and let them fight it out.

Sometimes they dont fight though. They look to spend as little as possible.

dacouch

You have a contract with them to repair your car for a claim that is covered irrespective of that, they cannot refuse a valid claim.

The call centre staff tend to have limited knowledge of Insurance and are driven by earning commission.

I'm guessing they were trying to sell you Legal Cover.

Ask them to confirm what they said in writing...

InsideInsurance

You will have been speaking to sales staff who most likely have little to no knowledge of claims processes at all. I am curious as to how it actually came up in conversation though... was it in connection with talking about legal expenses or did you ask a question and that was either reply?

Insurers are evidently keen that their policyholders who are involved in non-fault accidents dont claim off of their policy as whilst they are entitled to recover their direct outlay (eg the repair bill) they arent entitled to recover the indirect costs (staff handling the file, lost interest, postage etc).

MrA2012

It was when he was telling me about their guaranteed courtesy car service. He kept saying about how I would get a guaranteed car "if the accident is your fault". I asked whether they would provide a car if the accident wasn't my fault, to which the reply was something like:

"What do you mean, if the accident isn't your fault? If the accident isn't your fault then it's got nothing to do with us! You have to claim from the third party insurers."

I asked for clarification on what he meant by this, asking what would happen in general if I had a non-fault accident, giving the example in my above post. He confirmed that they wouldn't deal with the claim at all and I would have to deal directly with the third party. When I expressed surprise at this he actually seemed to get a bit annoyed with me, telling me I knew nothing about insurance, that all insurance companies work like this and none would ever deal with a non-fault claim. After that I saw no point in continuing with the quote, thanked him for his time and ended the call.

I have no idea if he was correct or not. I won't be using Churchill because of the above, but I was left wondering if things have changed and whether other insurance companies would also leave me to sort things out with the third party if somebody drives into me.

rs65

Sounds like you have got someone who doesn’t really know what they are talking about unfortunately.

They may prefer that you dealt direct with the other side but comprehensive cover means that they cover the cost of damage to your car.

From their own website:-
Our claims process

Being involved in an accident can be a very traumatic experience. You can count on Churchill to get you back on the road quickly and with the minimum of fuss.

When you claim, you’ll deal with UK contact centres and our Recommended Repair Network which offers nationwide coverage and a 5 year guarantee on all repairs. We’ll even collect and return your car to you - and clean it inside and out too!

MrA2012

No, that can't be right, he told me it was *me* who didn't know what *I* was talking about!

It's a little bit worrying really. I'm phoning a lot of insurance companies for quotes at the moment and can never really be sure if what they are telling me is true or complete nonsense. I've got to make a decision here!

adamc260

I don't see how they can refuse to. Your contract is with them to deal with your claim regardless of who is to blame. The person is... putting it politely... talking out of their backside!

dacouch

MrA2012 wrote: »

No, that can't be right, he told me it was *me* who didn't know what *I* was talking about!

It's a little bit worrying really. I'm phoning a lot of insurance companies for quotes at the moment and can never really be sure if what they are telling me is true or complete nonsense. I've got to make a decision here!

If he told you that, then I would vote with my feet and use a different Insurer. It's Churchill's fault for either not ensuring their staff are properly trained or equally as bad not ensuring staff that know what they're talking tell lies

InsideInsurance

The reality is you cannot monitor every single call that 8,000 call centre agents receive every day.

You train your staff to deal with the questions that they are most likely to get asked. You train your staff on who they should pass questions to if it is something they don't know or is another departments area of expertise. You monitor staff to ensure that they are doing the above and when doing your spot checks (the call centre ops I was involved in spot checks were a minimum of 10 calls per agent per week) you obviously feedback to them when they are stepping outside of guidelines.

Now back to reality, a sales person is asked what they believe is a straightforward question which they believe they know the answer to even if it isnt official in their area. Do they:

(a) find the telephone number for the relevant claims department, call it, wait in the queue, ask the claims advisor the question, "risk" having to put the call through as the claims person wants to clarify things, and come back to the customer potentially having added 5 minutes to the call time which is one of their KPIs or

(b) give the customer "the answer" and try to get the sale

Quentin

MrA2012 wrote: »

It's a little bit worrying really. I'm phoning a lot of insurance companies for quotes at the moment and can never really be sure if what they are telling me is true or complete nonsense. I've got to make a decision here!

If you are looking for a good insurer rather than a cheap one, then Which? recommends some:

http://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/reviews-ns/car-insurance/whichrecommended-providers/