possible declined insurance claim

Spies

This is so utterly rediculous, the fact the car has visual modifications has NO bearing on whether the OP would have been involved in the accident.

Insurance companies are just crooks.

Grumpy_chap

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. 

Thank you - that explanation clarifies why I had found mixed results on whether the stolen car owner's insurance covered the event of being hit by a stolen car or not.  

However, it is totally moot in the OP's case where the vehicle had no insurance cover anyway.

I still think it is unreasonable that the OP's insurance is seeking to avoid paying the claim because of some aesthetic body kit, which may or may not be standard on that particular car.  Apart from clearly outlandish after-market additions it is quite difficult for a used car buyer to know what exactly was and was not fitted as the car left the factory.  For most models, there are several variations of grill, side skirt, bumper, spoiler etc just within the standard model options, plus the option list options, plus variations every few months so that the manufacturer can demonstrate "continuous product development" - impossible for a buyer to know exactly.

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

There is the MIB Untraced Driver Agreement  www.mib.org.uk

I always got the two agreements mixed up even when a claims technician and now having to rely on memory. From memory the Untraced version excluded any losses covered by any other insurance and so if you have comprehensive insurance you'd have to claim your own damages from your own policy but injury and other uninsured losses can potentially look to the MIB

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:
I still think it is unreasonable that the OP's insurance is seeking to avoid paying the claim because of some aesthetic body kit, which may or may not be standard on that particular car.  Apart from clearly outlandish after-market additions it is quite difficult for a used car buyer to know what exactly was and was not fitted as the car left the factory.  For most models, there are several variations of grill, side skirt, bumper, spoiler etc just within the standard model options, plus the option list options, plus variations every few months so that the manufacturer can demonstrate "continuous product development" - impossible for a buyer to know exactly.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representation) Act 2012  makes the matter much clearer than the old rules were but its still an element of judgement on the intent of the OP/policyholder and if action could be "reckless" even if unintentional. 

From what the OP says they have reasonable prospects but you really have to see the mods to know if your average person isnt going to realise the bean can exhaust isnt a BMW fit item etc. 

Belenus

Spies said:

This is so utterly rediculous, the fact the car has visual modifications has NO bearing on whether the OP would have been involved in the accident.

Insurance companies are just crooks.

All that may be true but, unless I have misunderstood, the insurance company have not yet rejected any claim but are still in the process of investigating it.

Belenus

Medis111 said:

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. 

How do you know all that?

Are the Police investigating?

Fleeing the scene of an accident is a crime.

Lying about the car being stolen is a crime.  Perverting the course of justice possibly but I am no expert.

Sandtree

Spies said:

This is so utterly rediculous, the fact the car has visual modifications has NO bearing on whether the OP would have been involved in the accident.

Insurance companies are just crooks.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representation) Act 2012  means there doesnt have to be a link between the false declaration and the claim

Manxman_in_exile

Medis111 said:

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. 

I'm having a comprehension failure here...

Do you mean (1) that the car was SORN'd and therefore did not need insurance, or are you saying (2) that the car belonged to a member of a local "gang" and that he was driving around in it illegally without the car being insured when he caused the accident?

So the owner of the vehicle - which he, the owner, did not have insured - reported the car stolen to the police?

[Deleted User]

Spies said:

This is so utterly rediculous, the fact the car has visual modifications has NO bearing on whether the OP would have been involved in the accident.

Insurance companies are just crooks.

It has every bearing - people who mod cars are not always going to declare things if they think the insurance will increase too much or invalidate it. Modding car culture attracts a certain group (typically, but not exclusively), younger, typically male who may also like to show off/race et. Mods can affect the performance of the car e.g. affecting the handling from the spoiler, bigger wheels etc. OP may well have bought a car they liked the look of and quite rightly should not be penalised for not knowing what is and isn't on the car, that doesn't affect the insurance algorithms which say people who drive these sort of cars are more likely to be in an accident. The fact the OP was unlucky with the crash and is an innocent party doesn't change that - normal car insurance isn't built for individuals

Aretnap

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? 

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. 

This isn't relevant. Non-disclosure rules apply to the whole policy - either the insurer can cancel the policy for non-disclosure, or it can't.* If it can, it doesn't matter whether or not the particular modification which wasn't disclosed was a factor in a particular accident.

The key questions are (1) did the body kit meet the definition of modification according to the question the OP was asked when he took out the policy and (2) if so, was it reasonable to have expected him to realise this, given that he bought the car second hand. That's what he needs to focus on - all else is a distraction.

*This is distinct from breaching the terms of your policy AFTER you have taken it out, where the insurer can normally only refuse to pay a claim if the claim is related to the breach. So if your car insurance said that your car had to be roadworthy and you drove with no working headlights they could refuse to pay for an accident that you caused by driving into something in the dark, but not for an accident that happened in daylight. This doesn't help the OP however.