Bell has told me I'm not covered on my insurance

System

So if the OP had opened the bonnet and the engine had then caught fire, all the resulting damage would have been covered by insurance?

Is that the insurance companies' normal attitude to fire precautions? Forestall a fire and you are not covered - let it rip and we'll pay up?

Quentin

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Is that the insurance companies' normal attitude to fire precautions? Forestall a fire and you are not covered - let it rip and we'll pay up?

It's insurers attitude to all incidents.

The policy defines what incidents are covered. To claim for fire damage then you first need a fire.

Bantex_2

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

So if the OP had opened the bonnet and the engine had then caught fire, all the resulting damage would have been covered by insurance?

Is that the insurance companies' normal attitude to fire precautions? Forestall a fire and you are not covered - let it rip and we'll pay up?

They may have paid for the damage caused by the fire, but not the mechanical failure that caused the fire.

System

Quentin wrote: »

It's insurers attitude to all incidents.

The policy defines what incidents are covered. To claim for fire damage then you first need a fire.

But they are apparently defining "fire" as meaning flames.
That appears to mean that if your car is dangerously overheating and smoke is pouring out, it would be sensible to open the bonnet to make sure there were some real flames, not just heat and smoke damage?

Quentin

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

But they are apparently defining "fire" as meaning flames.
That appears to mean that if your car is dangerously overheating and smoke is pouring out, it would be sensible to open the bonnet to make sure there were some real flames, not just heat and smoke damage?

Do you like watching cars on fire?


How would that be "sensible"

[Deleted User]

pvt wrote: »

I think you are paranoid.

I don't use such a service - the only difference between us is that my Internet response will be better because it is direct, and that I am £60 a year better off than you.

It's fast, not really noticably different to my raw Virgin 120Mb connection.

You may be £60 better off, but in exchange for being in multiple databased and tracked as you browse the web, geolocated and spied on by your ISP and GCHQ. If you feel that is worth £60/year then okay, but I value privacy.