car insurance flooded

alm721

Do car insurances tend to cover cars if damaged through to driving through flood water. My hubby inadvertantly drove through some flood water which was significantly deeper than he thought. Water came over bonnet and car stalled. Now think it may have to be writt4en off but not sure wheter we can claim on insurance. Trying to find documents but policy will run out in a couple of days so just thought id ask advice. We were fully comp if that makes a difference.
thanks

maclean2

Sorry to hear about your car.

Your comprehensive policy should cover this OK.

Just report it without delay so that the insurance company can inspect it.The car is quite likely to be a total loss so have the MOT V5 and service records to hand.

HTH

foxyuk

Al_Mac wrote: »

So are you saying it isn't fraud:eek:

not much difference saying the water came to you rather than you decided to drive thru it:eek:

alm721

Not entirely sure if people are implying that we are somehow trying to defraud the insurance? We are not! The car broke down in the middle of the water and flooded, I was not even sure if we could claim as he drove through the water hence the question I posted! I was unsure as to what constitues damage. To be honest the vehicle has little value but its used by work,(its actually a van) which has advertising on it which is probably worth more than the van so it is not in our interest to lose it as we cannot afford to replace it.
Anyway thanks for the positive replies. My hubby has rang the insurance and they are arranging for someone to pick it up so we'll take it from there.

Thanks

vikingaero

ArchieB wrote: »

....and easily have your policy voided for trying to make a fraudulant claim. Amazing the number of people who post and actually encourage fraud.

Not sure where you're coming from Archie? The OP said that her OH drove through water that was deeper than he thought. That's negligent/an accident but certainly not fraud. Negligence/Accident = covered under a compo policy.

Most insurers cover this eventuality but the industry is becoming "irritated" by it and we may see companies that become adverse to this type of incident and exclude it in their T&Cs.

Of course it doesn't help that some cars have ridiculously low air intakes

foxyuk

vikingaero wrote: »

Not sure where you're coming from Archie? The OP said that her OH drove through water that was deeper than he thought. That's negligent/an accident but certainly not fraud. Negligence/Accident = covered under a compo policy.

Most insurers cover this eventuality but the industry is becoming "irritated" by it and we may see companies that become adverse to this type of incident and exclude it in their T&Cs.

Of course it doesn't help that some cars have ridiculously low air intakes

exactly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS WHY I SAID TO SAY THAT YOU DID NOT DRIVE THROUGH A FLOOD......

nej

Don't see why it wouldn't be covered. It may be a stupid thing to do (no offence!!!) but so is driving into a wall, or into the back of another car and that's covered, if you're fully comp.

alm721

Thanks everyone, van has been written off, the insurer rang and said the engine was knacked but he would write it off anyway as it stank asd was contaminated with sewage (egh) hubby not too chuffed as he had waded through it all to push the van out the water, guess we better start looking for another.

gazza975526570

I have heard of some claims being repudiated for dribing through clearly flooded areas

If it was a premeditated thought and it was likely you couldnt get through then this isnt an accident

alm721

gazza975526570 wrote: »

I have heard of some claims being repudiated for dribing through clearly flooded areas

If it was a premeditated thought and it was likely you couldnt get through then this isnt an accident

But it wasnt premeditated. My hubby thought he could get through it as he had seen someone else go through and he also had no other way to get home as our villlage is literally houses along one main road. The other end was completely flooded and he drove an extra 10 miles to come in the other way which we thought was'nt so bad. As I have said we would much rather have the van back as the value of it was quite low but we had paid out a bit for the advertising on the side. I can understand where you are coming from but can assure you that this was not the case.