possible declined insurance claim

Car_54

Medis111 said:

facade said:

So it is insured as an M sport shadow edition? I don't know BMWs, but a quick google suggests that it is an option pack of suspension wheels body kit and other trim, in which case Sandtree's post nails it, and unless you have the exact build specification, and you are a BMW expert, you wouldn't reasonably know if every piece was correct.

It does say m sport shadow edition on the v5. I’m no expert in bmw either hence not declaring and to be completely honest I never even knew body kit modifications would have to be declared as it doesn’t increase performance. Thanks for your advice I will wait and see what happens next. 

Cosmetic modifications have to be declared. First, they may make the car more (or less!) likely to be stolen. Second, they suggest to the insurers that their customer is a ****.

Grumpy_chap

Medis111 said:

I was involved in an accident that wasn't my fault, the other driver fled the scene (vehicle reported stolen, no insurance etc). It turns out my car has been modified with non standard body parts, front splitter, spoiler, rear diffuser and even exhaust has been modified. I am not a car person, and assumed these came standard with BMW M performance cars. My claim is now under the investigation and it is causing me a lot of anxiety (claim value 8-9k). I have sent the insurer the original posting where some of the description were "genuine m performance exhaust", M performance body kit etc. What do I do if they decline my claim? 

So, it sounds like you have an BMW 3-series M-Sport special edition, not an M3.  The special edition means extra body kit, so it looks more like an M3 than the regular M-sport trim.

Purchased second-hand, you'd have to be a real BMW-geek to know whether the body kit fitted is the exact standard for the special edition trim of this car, or had been enhanced by a previous owner away from the factory build.

Is the body kit purely aesthetic and not altering the performance in any way?

Your insurance fully declared the full model type.  Plus the full vehicle registration, and insurers look all this up on a central register as part of the quote process these days, so the insurer has the full car specification.

If all the above is correct, then the extra body kit is not material in the accident happening or not happening and it is not clear that the insurer would actually have any grounds to reject the claim.  They may reduce the pay-out to only cover the standard car, but that is far short of a full refusal to honour their obligations.  It is even possible that the car may be standard for that "special edition" factory trim.  It does not seem "reasonable" for your insurer to decline the claim.

That is my lay-person take on this as to "reasonable" - others may comment as to whether "reasonable" is what would happen.

One other thought - the other car may have been stolen but, if the car that hit you had current insurance in place, that may still allow a third-party claim to be made under RTA.  I am not sure on this, but it may be worth checking via MID whether there was any such cover in place.

Hope you can get this resolved amenably and quickly.  It was a nasty thing to happen, at least you were not hurt.

Ant555

Grumpy_chap said:

One other thought - the other car may have been stolen but, if the car that hit you had current insurance in place, that may still allow a third-party claim to be made under RTA.  I am not sure on this, but it may be worth checking via MID whether there was any such cover in place.

Thats not something I had ever thought of - if an insured car is stolen and crashed into another car then presumably the insurance pays out for the third party?  Is that different from an uninsured driver ?

Grumpy_chap

Ant555 said:

Thats not something I had ever thought of - if an insured car is stolen and crashed into another car then presumably the insurance pays out for the third party?  Is that different from an uninsured driver ?

Fortunately it is not something I've ever needed to know, but I understand that may well be the case, so the stolen car insurance covers damage done while stolen also.  But we need to wait for a definitive answer from someone who knows for certain.

It is certainly a route that is worth investigating for the OP either way - if it doesn't work like that, at least they know they tried.  Of course, if the stolen car also had no insurance it may all be moot.

Medis111

Grumpy_chap said:

Medis111 said:

I was involved in an accident that wasn't my fault, the other driver fled the scene (vehicle reported stolen, no insurance etc). It turns out my car has been modified with non standard body parts, front splitter, spoiler, rear diffuser and even exhaust has been modified. I am not a car person, and assumed these came standard with BMW M performance cars. My claim is now under the investigation and it is causing me a lot of anxiety (claim value 8-9k). I have sent the insurer the original posting where some of the description were "genuine m performance exhaust", M performance body kit etc. What do I do if they decline my claim? 

So, it sounds like you have an BMW 3-series M-Sport special edition, not an M3.  The special edition means extra body kit, so it looks more like an M3 than the regular M-sport trim.

Purchased second-hand, you'd have to be a real BMW-geek to know whether the body kit fitted is the exact standard for the special edition trim of this car, or had been enhanced by a previous owner away from the factory build.

Is the body kit purely aesthetic and not altering the performance in any way?

Your insurance fully declared the full model type.  Plus the full vehicle registration, and insurers look all this up on a central register as part of the quote process these days, so the insurer has the full car specification.

If all the above is correct, then the extra body kit is not material in the accident happening or not happening and it is not clear that the insurer would actually have any grounds to reject the claim.  They may reduce the pay-out to only cover the standard car, but that is far short of a full refusal to honour their obligations.  It is even possible that the car may be standard for that "special edition" factory trim.  It does not seem "reasonable" for your insurer to decline the claim.

That is my lay-person take on this as to "reasonable" - others may comment as to whether "reasonable" is what would happen.

One other thought - the other car may have been stolen but, if the car that hit you had current insurance in place, that may still allow a third-party claim to be made under RTA.  I am not sure on this, but it may be worth checking via MID whether there was any such cover in place.

Hope you can get this resolved amenably and quickly.  It was a nasty thing to happen, at least you were not hurt.

Thank you very much. This is a very useful response. The fact that the other vehicle was stolen and had no insurance makes it worse as I have to claim from my own provider. I see where they coming from, but a complete refusal seems excessive and I hope they come to their senses when reviewing all the information. 

From my limited knowledge it’s all aesthetics, just extra bits of plastic around the bodykit to make it look sportier I guess. 

[Deleted User]

The Ombudsman has been involved in cases like this before, where a car was modified but the owner didn't know. As long as there was no indication that the owner intended to deceive and could reasonably have believed that they gave the correct information, they usually end up ruling in the policy holder's favour.

That sounds like your situation so if they don't agree you should start a complaint. It will take ages to get to the Ombudsman but all you can do is wait.

Grumpy_chap

Medis111 said:

The fact that the other vehicle was stolen and had no insurance 

Is it definitely both of those? 

I understood that if a vehicle was stolen but involved in an accident, then the RTA cover was still in force covering third party claims (assuming the rightful owner actually had insurance).  I tried to look this up to give a reference, but my internet searches gave responses that are about 50/50 saying it works like that or does not work like that.  It may be that the actual insurer covers some cases, say personal injury, but not others.

I am also thinking that, arguably, the owner of the vehicle has not actually "wronged" you, so you'd have no claim against the owner and, hence, their insurance would not cover the "wrong".

This is certainly worth your effort to get a proper understanding of.



As to your own insurer, the approach of denying the claim entirely seems unreasonable to me.

Sandtree

Ant555 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

One other thought - the other car may have been stolen but, if the car that hit you had current insurance in place, that may still allow a third-party claim to be made under RTA.  I am not sure on this, but it may be worth checking via MID whether there was any such cover in place.

Thats not something I had ever thought of - if an insured car is stolen and crashed into another car then presumably the insurance pays out for the third party?  Is that different from an uninsured driver ?

It depends if the thief is identified... if they are identified the stolen vehicle insurer has to deal with the third party and has a right of recover against the thief (not that its a realistic opportunity). If the thief remains unidentified then the insurer has no liability to the third party and both are just having bad luck. 

Medis111

Sandtree said:

Ant555 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

One other thought - the other car may have been stolen but, if the car that hit you had current insurance in place, that may still allow a third-party claim to be made under RTA.  I am not sure on this, but it may be worth checking via MID whether there was any such cover in place.

Thats not something I had ever thought of - if an insured car is stolen and crashed into another car then presumably the insurance pays out for the third party?  Is that different from an uninsured driver ?

It depends if the thief is identified... if they are identified the stolen vehicle insurer has to deal with the third party and has a right of recover against the thief (not that its a realistic opportunity). If the thief remains unidentified then the insurer has no liability to the third party and both are just having bad luck. 

The problem here is that the vehicle had no insurance prior to being stolen. It’s a known local gang that caused an accident and the car wasn’t actually stolen, however for the owner to avoid liability and be blamed for the crash he declared it stolen. Even if police find the driver, I doubt they have any possessions that could pay for the damages. 

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

Ant555 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

One other thought - the other car may have been stolen but, if the car that hit you had current insurance in place, that may still allow a third-party claim to be made under RTA.  I am not sure on this, but it may be worth checking via MID whether there was any such cover in place.

Thats not something I had ever thought of - if an insured car is stolen and crashed into another car then presumably the insurance pays out for the third party?  Is that different from an uninsured driver ?

It depends if the thief is identified... if they are identified the stolen vehicle insurer has to deal with the third party and has a right of recover against the thief (not that its a realistic opportunity). If the thief remains unidentified then the insurer has no liability to the third party and both are just having bad luck. 

But if the thief is unidentified (and therefore the car is in effect uninsured) isn't that where the MIB steps in and pays any third party claim?

Or have I got that hopelessly wrong?