Insurance Refusing to Pay after Car Fire

pops23

Hi Everyone,
My partners car is insured with One Call Insurance. We were driving down M3 in the summer and as we pulled off into the services I noticed a lot of smoke coming out from back. Quickly realized that the car was on fire and managed to find a space away from other cars.

The fire seemed to be concentrated underneath the engine bay. Lots of smoke and flames falling onto tarmac. The fire was put out by staff at the service station with around 10 extinguishers from the building. It was out by the time the fire service arrived, although their heat sensors showed that the engine bay was extremely hot.

From the outside without opening bonnet the car looked undamaged.

One Call recovered the vehicle from the service station the next day.

One Call eventually produced an assessment report basically saying that the fire was caused by an electrical fault and was not insured!
They still have the car and are now trying to charge us for storage!

Surely this can't be right. Fully comprehensive insurance should cover for a fire.

This company are a nightmare to deal with. They take ages to answer the phone and everything happens at a snails pace.

We going through the ombudsman atm but getting no where fast. Considering small claims. Any ideas welcome.

daveyjp

What does the policy say about fire cover?

It isn't untypical for there to be no cover for fires caused as a result of mechanical or electrical faults.

elsien

Have you checked the wording on your policy documents around fire and exclusions?

pops23

Hi daveyjp

Thanks for your reply. We have been given no proof that it was an electrical fault the report 'suspects' an electrical fault but no proof is given.
Do we have to take their word for it.

daveyjp

You can argue, but you would need to get the car back and have an independent report carried out.

Just bear in mind without evidence of an accident, arson or a design fault it is quite difficult to prove the fire wasn't as a result of an electrical or mechanical fault as cars generally don't self combust.

AdrianC

pops23 wrote: »

Do we have to take their word for it.

No.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/motor-insurance

facade

Interesting.


My policy (Esure) covers


Damage to the car

All loss and damage to your car unless it’s by fire, lightening, explosion, theft or attempted theft.

They then waste paper talking about "new for old" replacement in the event that the car is stolen (difficult to do except by theft, which isn't covered)


Luckily, in the very next section


Fire & Theft

All loss or damage to your car caused by fire, lightning, explosion, theft or attempted theft.

However, in the "What isn't covered"

Any mechanical, electrical, computer/software breakdowns, failures, faults or breakages.

So unless you actually hit a third party accidentally, you aren't covered.


Wheel shears off and you crash = not covered.
On fire and not struck by lightning or an arsonist = not covered


Surely these terms are unfair? How does anyone ever get paid out?

AdrianC

facade wrote: »

Surely these terms are unfair?

Not at all...

"My car's broken down, and fixing it is going to cost more than it's worth".
Would you expect to claim from your insurance for that?

That's your mechanical exclusion.

"My car's engine management's having a major sulk, and fixing it's going to cost more than it's worth".
Would you expect to claim from your insurance for that?

That's your electrical exclusion.

The fact that the electrical problem had such... drastic... symptoms doesn't alter the fact that what you suffered was an electrical problem. If it wasn't for the symptoms, if it'd just ground to a halt with an electrical breakdown - would you have expected to claim?

Ultimately, if you wanted a policy without those exclusions, the time to have checked them was when you bought the policy. I've just renewed my sensible daily's policy today - the AA fully comp policy has exactly the same exclusions as yours.

facade

AdrianC wrote: »

The fact that the electrical problem had such... drastic... symptoms doesn't alter the fact that what you suffered was an electrical problem. If it wasn't for the symptoms, if it'd just ground to a halt with an electrical breakdown - would you have expected to claim?

No, but it is the symptoms/consequences I want to claim for.


If a £5 fuel pipe splits, I expect to only have to pay £5 for a new one.


If the leaking fuel sets fire to my £20k car and reduces it to ashes, I want my £20k. I'm perfectly happy for them to dock £5 for the split fuel pipe- as you say, I'd have had to pay £5 for a new one anyway if I still had a car to fit it to.


I interpret the exclusion as being that they don't pay for the actual mechanical or electrical fault that caused the damage, but they do pay for the consequential damage. (Otherwise they would have stated that "damage caused by electrical/mechanical breakdown is not covered" )


Hopefully, we won't see if I'm right or not.

pops23

Thanks for the input everyone.
So where does the responsibility for proof lie. I could equally state that I suspect that the fire was caused by someone else flicking a fag butt out their window on the motorway. It was one of the hottest driest days of the year. Whose suspicions carry more weight.

It also does seem really unfair as cars don’t catch on fire generally unless something is wrong with them. Therefore normal policies don’t really cover for fire?

daveyjp

facade wrote: »

No, but it is the symptoms/consequences I want to claim for.


If a £5 fuel pipe splits, I expect to only have to pay £5 for a new one.


If the leaking fuel sets fire to my £20k car and reduces it to ashes, I want my £20k. I'm perfectly happy for them to dock £5 for the split fuel pipe- as you say, I'd have had to pay £5 for a new one anyway if I still had a car to fit it to.


I interpret the exclusion as being that they don't pay for the actual mechanical or electrical fault that caused the damage, but they do pay for the consequential damage. (Otherwise they would have stated that "damage caused by electrical/mechanical breakdown is not covered" )


Hopefully, we won't see if I'm right or not.

You also forgot the other exclusion that excludes costs of repairs not as a direct result of accident or theft.

If your £20k car goes up due to a split fuel pipe it is on you.