Car Insurance threaten not to pay out after mouse damage to ventilation system on car

Aretnap

davidmcn said:

There are also the following general conditions which may be relevant:
"You shall at all times take reasonable steps to safeguard your car from loss or damage.
You shall maintain your car in a roadworthy condition"

I don't think either of those is particularly relevant. Most insurance policies do have a "you must take reasonable care..." clause, but the courts and the ombudsman (quite rightly) don't like insurers using such vaguely worded clauses to deny customers claims, and so the level of stupidity that is required before they can be activated is very high indeed. IIRC the standard is recklessness, ie the insurer would have to show that the customer knew (or must have known) that they were taking an unreasonable risk, but went ahead and did it anyway. Leaving your car in the garage for a couple of months while you're not using it doesn't come close to that standard.

And the roadworthiness clause is basically to give the insurer the option of declining a claim for an accident which you cause by (say) driving with defective brakes. In this case the problem is not any failure to maintain the car, it's the fact that the maintenance is (probably) not covered in the first place.

So it basically comes down to whether vermin damage can  be excluded under the "loss or damage which happens gradually" clause. It might be arguable but my instinct is to agree that it can - clearly mice building a nest and nibbling the seat covers and the wires etc is not something that happens in an instant. It seems akin to leaving your car unused for a while and finding that it has gone rusty or that the brakes have seized - those would not be insured events but just part of the joy of owning a car.

unforeseen

At the moment there isn't any indication that there is damage. All that has been seen is nesting material coming out of the air vents. I am assuming that it is obvious that it is not parts of the car so at the moment it is still an investigation but needs the dash removing. 
Nothing for the insurance company to even consider at the moment. 

rs65

roscampa said:

Quote Me Happy is saying gradual damage not covered (can't see how they'd know that)?  

Have just heard the Insurance company has come back with a report (no photos included so have asked for them) that quotes damage to seats, carpets, boot cover, spare wheel cover, insulation on the dash, wires to the dash and the obvious nesting material.  

I think you will be hard pushed now to argue it wasn't a gradual cause I'm afraid
No harm in trying a single claim for damage but if they accept rodent damage is an insured event, they may argue that damage to each part is a separate claim and therefore separate excess

Love to know if the ombudsman has ruled on anything like this

Hope it works out well for your in-laws but I wouldn't be hopeful

Ditzy_Mitzy

rs65 said:

roscampa said:

Quote Me Happy is saying gradual damage not covered (can't see how they'd know that)?  

Have just heard the Insurance company has come back with a report (no photos included so have asked for them) that quotes damage to seats, carpets, boot cover, spare wheel cover, insulation on the dash, wires to the dash and the obvious nesting material.  

I think you will be hard pushed now to argue it wasn't a gradual cause I'm afraid
No harm in trying a single claim for damage but if they accept rodent damage is an insured event, they may argue that damage to each part is a separate claim and therefore separate excess

Love to know if the ombudsman has ruled on anything like this

Hope it works out well for your in-laws but I wouldn't be hopeful

The Ombudsman has ruled on all sorts of 'gradual damage' claims.  All the case studies on the service's website seem to be about house insurance, but I assume that the principles are the same. 
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/home-buildings-insurance/gradual-damage
The over-riding one, the principle that seems to allow claims to be refused, is that the owner of the house - and I assume car - should have, or ought to have, realised the damage was occurring and taken steps to mitigate it.  This case is somewhat similar:
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/case-studies/couple-unaware-preventable-bedroom-water-damage
What needs to be answered here, given that we've been told there is damage to the car in terms of chewed seats and carpets, is whether the owner took appropriate steps to check the condition of the car, paying particular attention to whether then environment was causing it any harm.  I don't think it's unreasonable to have done this, given that the car was parked in a garage on the owner's property.  

jimbo6977

Reminds me of the "goat in a swimming pool" case from years ago. 
Anyway enough reminiscing, has any damage actually occurred? 
Can someone not take a hoover to the heating ducts?

rs65

jimbo6977 said:

Anyway enough reminiscing, has any damage actually occurred?  

damage to seats, carpets, boot cover, spare wheel cover, insulation on the dash, wires to the dash and the obvious nesting material. 

rs65

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

What needs to be answered here, given that we've been told there is damage to the car in terms of chewed seats and carpets, is whether the owner took appropriate steps to check the condition of the car, paying particular attention to whether then environment was causing it any harm.  I don't think it's unreasonable to have done this, given that the car was parked in a garage on the owner's property.  

Don't think I would be concerned about that.  With not using a car for two months, I think a reasonable check would be its still there, windows are intact and nothing had fallen on it.

jimbo6977

No obvious exclusions in the policy booklet. All you can do is follow the complaints procedure and if that becomes exhausted, complain to the FOS. 

If the claim goes ahead I would expect the car to be written off simply because there's a high risk of further damage being found at any point in time for ever and a day.