Car insurance claim refused - no 'commute to work' cover

Joseph_Merrick

Hi.
My step-daughter has just had an accident in her BMW on the way to work. She was crossing a slippery wooden bridge, the rear wheels span, sending the car sideways then down a bank, hitting a concrete post on the side on the way. The car was stuck 3m down and 5m away from the road with extensive damage to the nearside.
She, most importantly, is unharmed, other than shaken.
We called her insurance, 1st Central, straight away to try and arrange recovery and claim for the car. She has been insured with them for over a year, on her previous Corsa, then upgrading the policy when she got the BMW. She explained what had happened to the claim handler then we were shocked to be told that the insurance did not cover her for commuting as her policy only includes social, domestic and pleasure, not commute. My step-daughter had no idea what that meant! She bought the insurance on-line through a comparison site and chose fully comprehensive assuming, as the name implied, that she was fully covered for any eventuality. Apparently not and the insurance are refusing any kind of claim.
My step-daughter is only 23 and while she is confident and deals with most matters in her life without recourse to mum or step-dad, I feel it is unfair of the insurance company to, what I feel is, trick her out of a claim by providing so many different layers of options that there is always a loophole for them. Where is the duty of care? Indeed, at no time did anyone from the insurance company ever ensure the policy was fit for purpose and covered her requirements. Even when she rang at renewal time back in August to switch from monthly payments, to paying the whole policy up front, the call handler again never checked the policy was sufficient, they just took her money and ran.

I am writing this post for 2 reasons:

• For other users, please make sure you have commute cover if you drive to work in your car - we have spoken to so many friends following the accident who had no idea this was 'a thing' and have gone away to check their policies. What would have happened if the accident involved a third party? Would my step-daughter have been liable? Has she in effect been driving illegally all these months every time she went to work? Certainly not intentionally - she loved her car and thought she was 'fully [and] comprehensively' covered.
• For us, do any of the readers think we have grounds to claim against the insurance company, either for mis-selling (the policy wasn't fit for purpose) or for lack of a duty of care in not ensuring it covered her needs? So far we have had to pay for the recovery truck and my step-daughter is now without transport. To make matters worse the car is still under finance so we either have to try and repair it (and my gut feeling is an assessor would have written it off) or she has to pay off the finance in one lump that she cannot afford, and still have no car.

Any help or thoughts would be much appreciated and please, check your policies (and those of your growing up kids)!

dunstonh

For us, do any of the readers think we have grounds to claim against the insurance company, either for mis-selling (the policy wasn't fit for purpose)

You say she went through a comparison site.  So, it wasn't put in place under advice or sold to.  She chose to buy it.   SD&P is a viable coverage often used by housewives or the retired who do not need to include either business or commute.

 or for lack of a duty of care in not ensuring it covered her needs? 

Same as above.   Using a comparison site means you are bypassing the advice channel and taking responsibility for what you purchase.   When you go DIY, you give up a lot of the consumer protections you have as there is no professional guiding or advising you.   

The only possible route regarding a complaint is if the comparison site failed to show the options and a clear description.  I have used a couple myself and the ones I have used do make it clear.    You or her could do a dummy quote (using fake name etc and see what it says on the page that asks what level of cover is required.

jonesMUFCforever

What does her certificate of insurance say she is covered for?

csgohan4

Sadly this is another case of not checking through the comparison website tickboxes, I recently renewed my car insurance and I specifically ensured it was covered for business/work use, read the T+C and the cert afterwards. To not do so would not be applying due diligence on something that could save you money on an accident

You can select social domestic and pleasure as well as business use. 

It is not mis sold but mis bought, very expensive lesson here There is no loop hole. It is not the insurers fault for you not to check or clarify what SDP or business use meant. She could have called the insurers but chose not to. 

TELLIT01

Sorry for her situation, but there is nothing to suggest she was tricked into buying the wrong insurance.  She may not have understood what comprehensive cover actually meant but that's a different thing.  It is vital with any insurance that the documents are read thoroughly to ensure the cover actually fits your requirements.  I have very nearly been caught out in the past by making assumptions.  There is no 'duty of care' on the part of the insurer to check that the policy fits customer needs.  Indeed if they took the time to talk through the policy details with every customer it would mean a massive increase in policy cost.

The base cover provided under 'comprehensive' insurance has certainly reduced over the years.  When I started driving most comprehensive policies automatically covered travel to and from work and driving another vehicle not owned by you.  Both of those are 'extras' now.

If the police were involved she is actually fortunate that they didn't realise that she didn't have cover for commuting or she would now also have 6 points on her licence and a hefty fine.

Thrugelmir

When applying for insurance the questions asked are comprehensive in nature. No one is tricked. Onus is on the applicant to request the cover they require.  

naedanger

As others have said she almost certainly isn't covered.

She could check all the documentation she was sent when she bought the policy. If the position is unclear or ambigous in the documentation then should complain. But otherwise I think she is better being as nice to the insurer as possible with an aim of convincing them to continue/replace cover e.g. on a replacement car (albeit at a higher premium). Otherwise if they refuse cover then she may well find it difficult and expensive to obtain alternative cover.

Yahoo_Mail

Thrugelmir said:

When applying for insurance the questions asked are comprehensive in nature. No one is tricked. Onus is on the applicant to request the cover they require.  

Exactly.

Just went partway through the process on a couple of comparison sites.  Both asked what the car would be used for.  This wasn't a "check this box if you're using it to commute" option either. It was a required question.  Both had an option for "Social and commuting" and I can't imagine very many people would not understand what "commuting" means and even if they didn't, you can select "Help" or "?" to get definitions of the terms used.

OP's, it's unfortunate that your daughter has gotten herself in this mess but I don't see this as a problem that needs highlighting particularly, nor do I believe your daughter has any claim against the insurers (or the comparison site).  This was not an advised sale, it's her responsibility to ensure that the product meets her requirements.

csgohan4

understandably the OP is taking her daughter's side, but not thinking about the bigger picture. She is an adult and bought the policy herself. This is not a 10 year old buying the policy. An adult has a duty of care to themselves. 

We all make mistakes and we all live with them as well, it is no one else fault but hers sadly in this case. 

The pressing concern now is if the insurer will cancel the policy due to undisclosed circumstances. Having a cancelled policy is something you have to declare for a long time and may find difficulty in getting any kind of insurance

molerat

Also, if the do cancel - and maybe even if they don't, they could come after the daughter to reimburse for any third party damage claim.

Aretnap

dunstonh said:

For us, do any of the readers think we have grounds to claim against the insurance company, either for mis-selling (the policy wasn't fit for purpose)

You say she went through a comparison site.  So, it wasn't put in place under advice or sold to.  She chose to buy it.   SD&P is a viable coverage often used by housewives or the retired who do not need to include either business or commute.

And indeed by people who work from home, or who commute by train, bus or on foot. It's perfectly reasonable to sell insurance which doesn't cover commuting, even to someone who has a job, provided it's made clear that commuting will not be covered. In exchange for the lower level of cover the customer in theory gets a lower price, as they're less likely to be on the roads at the busiest times of day (though in practice the difference in price is often fairly small).

That said I'm sympathetic to the daughter as this does seem to catch a lot of people out, and personally I don't think it would hurt for insurance companies to make the question absolutely idiot-proof. Perhaps by having a pop up box that appears if you declare an occupation but tick SDP only, which says something along the lines of "This means that you will not be covered if you drive to work, even if you only do so occasionally. Are you sure?". That would eliminate any risk of misunderstanding, or at least mean that those who did misunderstand got no sympathy at all, even from softies like me.

But that's just a personal opinion and not much help to the daughter. If the comparison site said something like "What do you use the car for - (a) social domestic and pleasure only or (b) social domestic pleasure and commuting?" and she ticked box (a) then I can't imagine the Ombudsman finding that the terms were unclear or that she was tricked into thinking that she would be covered for commuting.

As the others have said if she bought the policy directly or from a price comparison site rather than through an adviser then it's her responsibility, not the insurer's, to ensure that the policy she's buying meets her needs and covers the things she wants covering, so her only comeback would be is the questions or terms of the policy were misleading or unclear. I suspect she will have an uphill struggle with any complaint.