Total loss following Luton Airport fire

MightyHunter

Hi,

My first post, sorry if I make mistakes!
My car was lost in the car park 2 fire and my insurers have accepted total loss and say they will pay out faily quickly.
My problem is how different insurers are dealing with this. I used John Lewis Insurance (Covea underlying company) as I thought they should be among the best given the JL reputation. However, media reports and announcements show that I am getting a pretty bad deal, many others are waiving the excess, treating it as no-fault, and not marking it down as a claim - so no effect on future years. They tell me they are doing none of this.
I do have protected no-claim bonus but I had to make a claim last year (first for over 40 years) when in the very same car park, at the pick-up point, somebody ran out in front of me as I was turning into a space and I hit a barrier trying to avoid them.
With 2 claims in 2 years I will still have NCB but I think my premiums will sky-rocket next year through no fault of my own.
Does anybody have any advice or know why the insurance industry are taking very different lines on what is a very rare occurence?
Thanks!

Alan_Bowen

I would contact the ABI, the Association of British Insurers, who have been coordinating with Luton Airport to get matters resolved. It clearly wasn't your fault and there may well be a claim of subrogation against the airport who built a huge car park with open sides enabling the air to fuel the fire and then forgot a sprinkler system. If your insurer insists on deducting the excess I would make a claim directly against the airport but I am certain the ABI are trying to ensure a sensible outcome for all car owners

Aretnap

In principle the incident is no different to any other fire claim. Most fires are caused by things which are beyond the control of the car's owner - but unless there is someone else who is at fault and who can be made to pay, it will go down as a claim on your policy and affect your no claims discount etc 

The only real difference between the airport for and (say) a fire in your garage caused by an electrical fault is that so many cars were affected at once and that it attracted so much media attention. This doesn't change the principles behind how the claim should be dealt with - but it does mean that some insurers are waiving excesses etc, essentially for public relations reasons. If they do, it's as a goodwill gesture on their part, not something that they're under any actual obligation to do. Each insurer will ultimately take its own view on whether to treat it as a special case - the ABI might have a view on what's best but ultimately it is a trade body not a regulator and doesn't have the power to force insurers to do anything.

As you've discovered "John Lewis" insurance is actually a white label product provided by Covea to which various companies can attach their names. Unfortunately it doesn't always mean John Lewis levels of service.

There might be a claim against the airport or against the owner of whichever car ultimately caught fire, but it is by no means clear cut and ultimate liability could take a long time to work out.

Grumpy_chap

MightyHunter said:

Hi,

My first post, sorry if I make mistakes!
My car was lost in the car park 2 fire and my insurers have accepted total loss and say they will pay out faily quickly.
My problem is how different insurers are dealing with this. I used John Lewis Insurance (Covea underlying company) as I thought they should be among the best given the JL reputation. However, media reports and announcements show that I am getting a pretty bad deal, many others are waiving the excess, treating it as no-fault, and not marking it down as a claim - so no effect on future years. They tell me they are doing none of this.
I do have protected no-claim bonus but I had to make a claim last year (first for over 40 years) when in the very same car park, at the pick-up point, somebody ran out in front of me as I was turning into a space and I hit a barrier trying to avoid them.
With 2 claims in 2 years I will still have NCB but I think my premiums will sky-rocket next year through no fault of my own.
Does anybody have any advice or know why the insurance industry are taking very different lines on what is a very rare occurence?
Thanks!

It may well be that expediency means processing this as a "fault" claim following normal process and then seeking to identify whether there is a third party against whom the losses can be recovered.  If that is possible, then the excess would be recovered and the claim status "fault" or "non-fault" revised at that stage.  At this moment in time, the individual car owner's claims would appear to be "fault" claims for insurance purposes as there is no identified third party from who to recover losses.  The fire investigations may determine the root cause of the incident so may identify a third party that is liable.

This news article seems to suggest that Luton Airport are not accepting liability (which is to be expected) and it is for individual motor insurance to cover the lossses:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/15/up-to-1500-cars-luton-airport-fire-unlikely-salvageable#:~:text=We have provided the Motor,company as soon as possible.”

Car_54

Alan_Bowen said:

I would contact the ABI, the Association of British Insurers, who have been coordinating with Luton Airport to get matters resolved. It clearly wasn't your fault and there may well be a claim of subrogation against the airport who built a huge car park with open sides enabling the air to fuel the fire and then forgot a sprinkler system. If your insurer insists on deducting the excess I would make a claim directly against the airport but I am certain the ABI are trying to ensure a sensible outcome for all car owners

Sprinkler system? Petrol fire?

DullGreyGuy

Car_54 said:

Alan_Bowen said:

I would contact the ABI, the Association of British Insurers, who have been coordinating with Luton Airport to get matters resolved. It clearly wasn't your fault and there may well be a claim of subrogation against the airport who built a huge car park with open sides enabling the air to fuel the fire and then forgot a sprinkler system. If your insurer insists on deducting the excess I would make a claim directly against the airport but I am certain the ABI are trying to ensure a sensible outcome for all car owners

Sprinkler system? Petrol fire?

Then the claim for the river of fire getting washed down the ramp. Next will be CO2 or such which takes out the people in their parking their cars at the time. 

Aretnap said:

As you've discovered "John Lewis" insurance is actually a white label product provided by Covea to which various companies can attach their names. Unfortunately it doesn't always mean John Lewis levels of service.

That's ultimately up to JL and what they want to prioritise when they decide to start selling insurance. Some companies look for those offering the largest commissions, some where they can find alignment on corporate values or some other dimension or blend. 

Alan_Bowen said:
It clearly wasn't your fault and there may well be a claim of subrogation against the airport who built a huge car park with open sides enabling the air to fuel the fire and then forgot a sprinkler system. If your insurer insists on deducting the excess I would make a claim directly against the airport but I am certain the ABI are trying to ensure a sensible outcome for all car owners

How is it the policyholder's fault in 90% of fire, theft, vandalism etc claims? Still the standard reaction of policies is to only covered insured losses (which the excess isnt) and treat it as a fault claim if they cannot recover their outlay from anyone else. 

There are individual insurers that have various "promises" to deal with claims where its likely the insured isnt to blame but you need to make sure your counter fraud measures are good enough before making such promises else when someone drives into a post at low speed becomes a vandalism claim with the local trouble makers being seen wandering round with a baseball bat (or such). 

Aretnap

Alan_Bowen said:

...there may well be a claim of subrogation against the airport who built a huge car park with open sides enabling the air to fuel the fire...

Ventilation in car parks is generally considered to be a Good Idea, due to the whole not killing people with exhaust fumes thing, so I'm not sure that puts them at fault 

Keep_pedalling

Aretnap said:

Alan_Bowen said:

...there may well be a claim of subrogation against the airport who built a huge car park with open sides enabling the air to fuel the fire...

Ventilation in car parks is generally considered to be a Good Idea, due to the whole not killing people with exhaust fumes thing, so I'm not sure that puts them at fault 

And killing people with toxic gasses from car fires.

MightyHunter

Thanks all, if anything changes I'll post it here.

MightyHunter

I've had some good news.
Insurance is paying about £6k more than Autotrader suggest a private sale would achieve, and JL insurance say they've changed policy since the email they sent me 4 days ago, now waiving the excess, no effect on NCB and no fault will be registered.
So happy days and good for them!