Direct Line Car Insurance - Invalid while car is subject to SORN?

aJayMitchell

Morning all,

Thought I'd post this up here for further discussion/investigation after seeing it on another forum (SELOC for Lotus owners). For clarity, I personally don't have a policy with Direct Line, and have confirmed with Admiral that the below issue does not apply.

According to two sources, Direct Line have changed their underwriting guide, which now states that if a car is subject to a SORN, the insurance policy must be suspended or cancelled - it's therefore assumed any existing policy is invalid while the car is off the road. While some may be willing to take the risk of leaving a car uninsured while off the road, others (myself included) prefer to keep our policy running to ensure we're still covered in the event of fire, theft, etc. It seems a bit odd that they're taking this approach - and shocking that they're not updating their customers with this information if it is indeed correct.

Does anybody have any experience of this with Direct Line? I can't help but think the lack of notification/updated policy means them calling a policy invalid would never stand up if challenged.

AdrianC

Your screenshot of the longer response says that the car IS covered.

If the policy Ts & Cs don't say that insurance will be invalided by the car being SORNed, then they simply cannot refuse a claim for non-road damage or loss. They would have to cover a claim for road loss, but might be able to pass the bill back.

It's yet another reminder to use specialist insurers for specialist requirements.

aJayMitchell

Insuring a car while SORN-ed isn't really a specialist requirement though is it?

Also, the response does state the car is insured, but only as an exception after the customer has contacted them. The second paragraph reads that they admit their current policy documents omit that the insurance isn't valid while a car is SORN-ed.

Car_54

The underwriting guide is a red herring. They cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the customer's policy.

AdrianC

aJayMitchell said:

Insuring a car while SORN-ed isn't really a specialist requirement though is it?

Outside of these Covid times? Yes...

And I'll bet that a quick once-round the specialists would find that the likes of DL aren't even that cheap for something like a Lotus. Not to mention the sheer hassle of getting a sensible value in the event of a write-off.

aJayMitchell

AdrianC said:

aJayMitchell said:

Insuring a car while SORN-ed isn't really a specialist requirement though is it?

Outside of these Covid times? Yes...

And I'll bet that a quick once-round the specialists would find that the likes of DL aren't even that cheap for something like a Lotus. Not to mention the sheer hassle of getting a sensible value in the event of a write-off.

For clarity, again, my Lotus isn't insured with Direct Line.

Also, even if the person originally raising the issue insures his Lotus with DL - what is the relevance of that on Direct Line unilaterally changing their policy without informing their customers?

neilmcl

aJayMitchell said:

AdrianC said:

aJayMitchell said:

Insuring a car while SORN-ed isn't really a specialist requirement though is it?

Outside of these Covid times? Yes...

And I'll bet that a quick once-round the specialists would find that the likes of DL aren't even that cheap for something like a Lotus. Not to mention the sheer hassle of getting a sensible value in the event of a write-off.

For clarity, again, my Lotus isn't insured with Direct Line.

Also, even if the person originally raising the issue insures his Lotus with DL - what is the relevance of that on Direct Line unilaterally changing their policy without informing their customers?

There is none, no insurance co. can change the terms of an existing policy.

AdrianC

aJayMitchell said:
Also, even if the person originally raising the issue insures his Lotus with DL - what is the relevance of that on Direct Line unilaterally changing their policy without informing their customers?

There is, as already said several times, none - because they can't.

But it's merely a reminder that general policies are rarely suitable for specialist requirements. If DL do introduce this in future, how many people are going to bother reading the paperwork to find that out first?

aJayMitchell

I know they can't, you know they can't - however this is what DL are advising their customers has happened. My point is aimed at those who would not look to challenge DL in what they are saying - and could lose out significantly should the worst happen.

Still struggle to see how insuring a SORN-ed car is a matter for a specialist insurer. There were almost 3 million cars SORN-ed at the end of 2019 (circa 9% of cars), and while a proportion of those will happily be uninsured, it's really not that uncommon a practice!

Manxman_in_exile

aJayMitchell said:

I know they can't, you know they can't - however this is what DL are advising their customers has happened. My point is aimed at those who would not look to challenge DL in what they are saying - and could lose out significantly should the worst happen.

Still struggle to see how insuring a SORN-ed car is a matter for a specialist insurer. There were almost 3 million cars SORN-ed at the end of 2019 (circa 9% of cars), and while a proportion of those will happily be uninsured, it's really not that uncommon a practice!

Then you should point out to the members on SELOC that Direct Line can't actually do that.  I assume at least one person has been fobbed off by DL?

aJayMitchell

They picked it up from another forum they were on, and when they questioned it with DL - the two photos are the response they got. 

Try to help and make people aware of a potential issue and get these sorts of snarky replies though - I give up.