Car Insurance not paying out for a Fire

Jim1944

I noticed what a thought was a oil leak (car left oilly spots on the road under the engine bay) So I took it to the garage & left it for repair.

When the chap in the garage moved the vehicle, it went on fire (a small fire in the engine bay) -"Thankfully" due to his quick reactions he managed to put the fire out so it did not spread to the rest of the car, and no one was harmed.

However, the damage caused to wireloom,resulted in the cost of the repair exceeding the value of the vehicle. Therefore my car is a write off due to a fire occuring.

The insurance company (Aviva) are advising me my cover (which is fully Comp) does not cover: mechanical or electrical failures - They have blame the fire on an Electrical failure.

Now the Crazy Part !!.
They have stated that if the fire was allowed to spread then I would have a claim, as they would pay out on all "Secondary Damage"to my vehicle caused as a result of the fire (ie burnt out interior, blown out windows , all of which would have again resulted in the vehicle been written off.

I read my policy in detail when I recieved it and my interpretation of "does not cover: mechanical or electrical failures " as a non insurance expert would be 'You can't claim us if you exhaust falls off or your lights fails & you need to take your car to a garage for repair'

Any advise would be greatly recieved - I had thought that Fire cover in insurance policy meant your covered in the event of a fire. (It just seems crazy that if the chap in the garage allowed the fire to spread and endanger lifes, then I would have a claim ??)

If Insurance companies are using the clause: "mechanical or electrical failures" to prevent the pay out of fire claims, I can't help but feel I have been missold my policy. Would I have any recourse here (is this similar to the current PPI issues , ie policy not clearly explained at time of sale ??)

forgotmyname

How bad was the fire? What damage has it actually caused?

If its just the loom then i guess they put that down to general failure and
not covered.

Not clearly described at point of sale. Its in the policy documents you get. You can correct or cancel if you dont agree with them or find mistakes.

Boils down to what damage has been done and to what parts.

JimmyTheWig

I'll give you an analogy...

Our fish tank leaked overnight a few years ago.
Water damaged the cabinet it was on, the floor, a load of stuff on the floor. (Luckily the damage wasn't quite at the bottom, so the fish survived.)
The insurance company paid out for the cabinet, floor and stuff on the floor. They didn't pay out for the tank itself. Because the tank failing wasn't covered by insurance. But the resulting water damage was. If we were awake at the time and caught the water in a bucket there would have been no claim.

I guess it's the same in your case. The wireloom has failed, which isn't covered by the insurance. Had that damaged the rest of the car then they would have paid out. But as it was there was nothing damaged that didn't fail, so nothing to claim for.


I would imagine if the guy could have put it out but chose not to then he would be in trouble!

Quentin

Aviva are not alone.

Most policies exclude this.

Jim1944

Thanks fmn

The fire damaged only the wiring loom (due to the quick reactions of the chap in the garage)

Garage are stating it's £1000 at least to repair) and given my car is only worth £1300 (insurance excess is £550, so a write off value of £750 for the insurer)

I agree that we all get T&Cs and we can cancelled contracts if we are not happy.

I read mine to ensure they were correct (ie it included all the things I requested ie,,Fully Comp cover, No Claims protection, correct excess, etc)

However as with the Banks & PPI should insurance companies not be clearly explaining what is covered and ensuring the purchaser fully understands, (Even the assessor admitted my understanding of the mechanical or electricalfailures clauses (see initial post) is the same as most members of the public if they were asked.)

So if the Insurance Companies recognise that the public don't have a clear understanding then surely they have a duty of care to fully explain the clause in clear unabiguous language.


if you have fire cover and a fire occurs we will settle.

Again I feel it's crazy if that if the fire was allowed to spread then the insurance company would settle all damages caused by the fire.

Jim1944

Thanks JTW @ 3:46, I agree if the chap in the garage had said there are issues with your wiring loom then this is an electrical issue and I would accept it's my responsibility to fix it. (like your fish tank this is not a covered item) and pay the garage / auto electrican accordingly to fix it

However my challenge is that a fire has occurred and caused damage to my wiring loom & I have fire coverage in my policy

JimmyTheWig

Jim1944 wrote: »

Thanks JTW @ 3:46, I agree if the chap in the garage had said there are issues with your wiring loom then this is an electrical issue and I would accept it's my responsibility to fix it. (like your fish tank this is not a covered item) and pay the garage / auto electrican accordingly to fix it

However my challenge is that a fire has occurred and caused damage to my wiring loom & I have fire coverage in my policy

I think the point is what started the fire?
A faulty fish tank started my flood. The fish tank wasn't covered but everything else was.
I took it that they are saying that a faulty wiring loom started your fire. So the wiring loom isn't covered but everything else that got burned (which is nothing thanks to the garage guy) would be covered.

[Also, whose valuation is the £1300? Does that allow for the fact that it was in the garage with stuff wrong with it?
Your insurance will go up for a few years after making a claim. May well cost you £400 in increased premiums over time. If the £1300 is your estimate and they agree at £1000 (e.g. given the existing problems) then you'd only come out of the thing £50 up on my figures. May not be worth the hassle.]