Rejected insurance claim

brazilianwax

BigV wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice.

The car has been serviced at the correct times, until 2004 it was serviced under warranty by Peugeot dealers, and subsequently by private Peugeot specialists. I dont know if the cambelt was changed but I dont think it was broken, I think it's got to do with the engine mount.

I think my dad has legal expenses included so can he use his (even though I was driving)? It is his car after all.

Thanks for the link I'll have a read through.

If I replace with a 2nd hand engine etc, how much will that depreciate the car's value?

Car is only worth what someone else will pay for it, so it's impossible to say. I doubt it would be that much on a car of that age/mileage etc.

BigV_2

As for the non-Japanese car, I agree, I've always told him to get a Civic but hes only ever had Peugeots and they've never ever broken down on him. This is the only one he bought fairly new though and for a lot of money - had to happen that this would be the one that would flop.

iceicebaby

I always have either japanese or German cars

impy78

BigV wrote: »

A car shouldn't be insured twice? That's the first I've heard of that too.

It is illegal in fact

BigV wrote: »

I realise that insurance wouldn't cover a mechanical fault so I told the insurance company that I thought it was because I drove over a speed hump too hard.

So you lied to get them to cover you??? Don't you think they will find out as soon as they look at the car? Then you could get into trouble for trying to make a fraudulent claim.

brazilianwax

impy78 wrote: »

It is illegal in fact

Not technically true, but it definitely isn't a good idea.

My policy document states that if you have dual insurance, the company will only pay out it's share in the event of a claim.

But it's gotta be easier to claim from one company than two!

Graham_Devon

There is no argument or bargaining you can do. Even if you were fully covered for driving over there, the insurance would not handle a mechanical breakdown.

A warranty would, even a third party warranty (such as warranty direct), but never insurance.

So either way, you wont get anywhere.

It's not really our fault that it happened though, it would have happened to your dad too, unless of course you were ragging the hell out of it!

BigV_2

I drove it really cautiously because I was wary of camaras on the motorways and it was going nicely & I always try and drive it in the right gears in town, so I dont think it was any fault of mine.

I didnt tell the insurance company that it was because I drove the engine over a hump, I said that I did think I hit a hump quite hard a bit earlier and then this happened so I thought that it might be the reason.

I think once Green Flag get the car over here, we can get the problem properly diagnosed and then take it from there. I have to say, I'm not satisfied with this warranty and I think most mechanics would agree that the engine has packed up prematurely. Peugeot should pay for this.

mattymoo

BigV wrote: »

I think once Green Flag get the car over here, we can get the problem properly diagnosed and then take it from there. I have to say, I'm not satisfied with this warranty and I think most mechanics would agree that the engine has packed up prematurely. Peugeot should pay for this.

It will not be easy to convince them. In my case I mentioned earlier, the manufacturer paid up for 2 reasons. 1, the timing belt was not due to be changed for another 22,000 miles and 2, the firm I worked for (an insurance company) has one of the largest fleets in the UK and the fleet manager carried a lot of clout.

You might be lucky and get a small contribution out of them but I doubt they will stump up much. Initially your claim against Peugeot is likely to be rejected.

BigV_2

mattymoo wrote: »

It will not be easy to convince them. In my case I mentioned earlier, the manufacturer paid up for 2 reasons. 1, the timing belt was not due to be changed for another 22,000 miles and 2, the firm I worked for (an insurance company) has one of the largest fleets in the UK and the fleet manager carried a lot of clout.

You might be lucky and get a small contribution out of them but I doubt they will stump up much. Initially your claim against Peugeot is likely to be rejected.

It's a shame that's how it is, if the car belongs to a big insurance company, you're fine, if you're just a working class man you'll get nothing.

I just dont see how they could defend themselves: they give you a guide as to what you need to do to look after your car, if you stick to it and things go wrong while it is still a valuable car, they've got to do something about it.

If these things are not covered by insurance, there needs to be something else to cover it. The warranty is a joke, a car should have a life of more than 3 years and the majority do!

I must come across as being too brash and hotheaded about this but do we really stand such little chance against these big companies? What can we do to beat them in a court?

peterbaker

BigV, I feel very sorry for you and your parents. This is a lot of expense. I was going to respond along the lines that previous posters were right, but of course that isn't a huge help, so I thought again.

I don't want to raise your hopes unduly, but there are a couple of things to clarify here which I think might possibly hang together as threads which might just be enough to have another go at pressing a claim under your motor policy (not the breakdown policy and not your parents policy):

1) You arranged the one week's RAC cover specially for the trip. Did you tell them you were taking the car to France? If not, then that's is seriously unhelpful to your case against RAC. Reading between the lines, you were upgraded to a cheapy RAC version of Norwich Union "fully comp" that does NOT give an automatic European full cover foreign use extension (You might not be surprised to learn that the best policies DO have such and extension and indeed NU offer it freely in some of their policy variants).

You only had TPFT cover on your own car, so clearly if you did not tell RAC that you were taking the car to France then they could be forgiven for selling you UK only comprehensive cover and your case is dead in the water.

However, if you still think you have one or more joined up threads of a case, then read on...
2) Now here's the crunch ... what exactly happened? Pistons are deep inside engines. Engine mounts are outside and just hold the engine in the correct posture in the engine compartment. What broke first and why, and what was the following chain of events? The speed hump event might have been enough to damage the engine mount. But how did that lead to the piston problem? Did some external event in fact cause the timing belt to jump on the cog (or was it struck or pushed by something) without breaking the belt? (it's rubber but has teeth to keep it in synch with the pistons).

I am not a walking lie-detecting machine like they have wired up to the insurance claims lines, but reading between your typed-lines even I can accept that you are not entirely sure of what happened, and DO seriously wonder if the speedhump might have contributed.

That's perfectly fair! When trying to piece together your case to claim, you are quite entitled to wonder just as widely and just as disjointedly as the insurers do when they think of weasly ways not to pay your claim (so long as your disjointed ideas lead to a claim formulated in good faith!). We are well past 1984, but at the moment, it is still not illegal to consider all the options in your head! But don't conspire with others, ok!

I wouldn't be unduly worried about the industrywide sharing of data just at the moment - and there is absolutely NOTHING illegal in insuring the same vehicle two ways like this - you have done nothing wrong and nothing particularly unusual yet, so there is no question of fraud.

However, if you do involve more than one insurer in the same damage (in your case I don't think Saga can be formally expected to get involved beyond the breakdown claim) then the sum total of your claim can never exceed 1x your actual loss, you would be best advised to admit the two policies to both sides from the outset, and you must not lie about any of it of course. Telling Saga that the incident occurred in the UK is a definite no-no if for no other reason than you WILL easily be found out because of the data sharing, and that IS serious poo to be avoided.

So, I strongly suggest you get 1) and 2) above straight in your mind, because as you have got the car back to Blighty where it can now be fixed cheaply if needs must, you might get the RAC to reconsider their position on the basis that its not 10000Euros anymore, its just a few hundred quid and a terrible misunderstanding at the point of sale. That's likely to be your easiest way out of the bad hand you've been dealt here. RAC will probably wriggle like hell however if they had absolutely no idea you were taking the 406 to France - and they might still wriggle even if you did discuss your impending drive down the A16 from Calais to Paris with their customer services agent without actually using the word France to prompt him or her into action - they are a poor reflection of what the RAC used to be! If you agree this is your best chance then I would suggest quickly escalating the matter to someone senior before the juniors slam all the doors tightly shut!

NU have washed their hands for the moment, so if you cannot persuade RAC Customer Services that you had good reason to believe that you had automatic European fully comprehensive cover then you are pretty much back on your own I think.

You could only bring NU into the equation if you could embarass them somehow into believing that RAC had seriously misrepresented NU and lied about the NU product sold to you and that would be extremely difficult (NU doesn't get embarassed easily on behalf of big ugly commission agents like RAC).

I think that the suggestion that a legal expenses claim against the Peugeot dealer might work is even more weak than the thin threads I have spun above, especially if the reason for the engine failure was not bad design or maintenance but was kicked off by whacking the engine against the speedhump.

Finally, there is the even more grovelling cap-in-hand approach (may not be worth a hope in hell in this 2007 of ours) but might be worth talking to Saga about if your Dad is a long term customer. I wouldn't even consider this normally, but I believe Saga's insurer is likely to be Liverpool Victoria who are perhaps THE only remaining gentlemen's insurer (I know because I am an LV client!).

You or your Dad can explain that your Dad was only trying to help you by lending you his reliable car for the trip (you also drive a Peugeot but a less reliable one!), and in return you sought to make it easy for your Dad by not expecting him to pay to insure you for a whole 6 months. Instead you did all the right things to add it to your own RAC/NU policy instead. Your ONLY mistake was the misunderstanding about the NU comprehensive cover you arranged which unlike Saga's cover it now transpires did not include an automatic extension of the comprehensive cover for France.

Could Saga/LV possibly consider accepting from you now their original 6 month quoted premium as consideration and then dealing with the claim. please? You would be extremely grateful if they would, as this has all been a horrible misunderstanding. It is a very long shot, but might be your last hope.

They might say well it isn't an accidental damage motor claim anyway, and you might be able to convince them that by the thin chain of events from the speedhump to the timing belt jumping a cog that in fact it was an external cause.

If not, and it turns out it was afterall pure mechanical breakdown, and nothing to do with the speedhump, then your last plea will be "well if we pay you that 6 month premium anyway, will you consider paying for a reconditioned short engine under the parts section of the breakdown insurance if we can find it at a cheap price?"
I am not too familiar with the full extent of Saga's breakdown insurance - many so-called breakdown policies are just "get you home policies" as you perhaps have already found out. They leave you to fix the car at your own cost. But some I think will pay for part of a repair cost. Some perhaps say "We'll fix the car OR we will get you and the car home".

As I said, I hope I haven't raised your hopes unduly, and the cap in hand approaches at the bottom here might just be so much pie in the sky, ... but anyway, I just thought a rehash might help your thinking!