Insured or not?

cavework

One of our company vans was involved in an accident today.
Police were called and our driver was advised by them that the vehicle was in a fit state to drive home.
In the meantime I had been on the phone to our insurers who were in the process of arranging a tow truck to recover the vehicle and take it to an approved repairer.
I contacted insurance company to tell them that the police had said vehicle was in a fit state to drive and I asked them to cancel tow truck .
Insurance company then told me the vehicle was no longer insured after the accident and that the police had no right to allow it to be driven!

By this time my staff had returned home with the vehicle which is being picked up by the repair garage on Monday.
Who was correct ,the police or the insurance company?
Just wondering as this could happen to anyone

pathtofreedom

What do the terms and conditions for the insurance say? Do they have clauses about what to do if it involved in an accident? It probably comes down to your individual insurance contract with them rather than a uk law.

Marktheshark

They can only cancel insurance by issuing a 7 day notice in writing by post.

[Deleted User]

cavework wrote: »

Who was correct ,the police or the insurance company?

Both, probably. The police were talking about the mechanical condition of the vehicle, and the insurance company were talking about the terms and conditions of your policy.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Could it Be OP that the insurers are not Voiding the policy but are now telling you that because it has been involved in an accident they wont cover it from now on until its been assessed by their repairer because they don't know how bad the vehicle is E.G whether hidden damage could cause a further accident?


I think you would need to seek further clarification and have some mitigating point to put to them for countering them.


1. one point would be whilst you arranged recovery in call one they did not state it was not to be driven and to await recovery regardless of its condition if infact you were not told at that point.


2.would be to seek clarification on insurance on it are they going to void the policy all together making you declare it SORN and be left with a expensive paper weight or telling you not to drive it until its been assessed by their repairer but will remain as insured on the MIB but if you do drive it ans its involved in another accident wont cover the repair bill only Third party liability.


look closely in the hand book for the insurance and seek clarification form them about its insurance status

cavework

Must admit I was so busy dealing with staff and insurance company via phone I didn't think to check the terms and conditions at the time.
But I will now have a good read so this situation doesn't occur again.
Main thing is .. no one was injured.
Thanks for replying

cavework

Could it Be OP that the insurers are not Voiding the policy but are now telling you that because it has been involved in an accident they wont cover it from now on until its been assessed by their repairer because they don't know how bad the vehicle is E.G whether hidden damage could cause a further accident?


This was their point but it was not mentioned until I phoned them back and told them a recovery vehicle was not required because the police had said it was in a drivable condition and my staff were already driving home which meant they were not covered by the insurance on that drive home

arcon5

Makes no sense to me. You insure for 12 months, don't see how an accident changes that. Many people have bumps, tell insurer for info purposes only and continue driving after their own repairs.

I suspect the insurance company are taking the line that if they are driving the vehicle and have an accident they will not make it easy if its condition was questionable.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

cavework wrote: »

Could it Be OP that the insurers are not Voiding the policy but are now telling you that because it has been involved in an accident they wont cover it from now on until its been assessed by their repairer because they don't know how bad the vehicle is E.G whether hidden damage could cause a further accident?


This was their point but it was not mentioned until I phoned them back and told them a recovery vehicle was not required because the police had said it was in a drivable condition and my staff were driving home which meant they were not covered by the insurance on the drive home

if its not stated in policy schedule (you must read it) they cant simply pull cover like that and the phone operator was wrong to tell you that. stick to whats in your policy schedule T&C if it mentions nothing about not being insured post accident and recovery is essential then i wouldn't worry.

Car_54

arcon5 wrote: »

Makes no sense to me. You insure for 12 months, don't see how an accident changes that.

An accident changes it if the car's written off: that's the end of the contract. I guess they're saying that until they've inspected it they don't know.

dacouch

Is your Insurer Admiral or one of their group of companies? I ask as they have a specific part of the policy which excludes cover for causing further damage to your vehicle after using it following an accident. Basically meaning if the car sustains further damage due to you driving it after an accident they will not cover the consequent damage