Insured or Not?

Mayaxyx16

Hello,
I’ve read a few threads on here and many people seem to be correct when giving advice.

My question to everyone is the following:
Had an accident 16 months ago. I called to report the accident straight after it happened and said I was coming home from work.
Surprise, that wasn’t included in my policy and I am deemed at fault. My Insurance company refused to cover any of the costs because I breached the contract.
I tried to argue with them that was not clear to me that I thought I was covered for everything. No luck
They have now sent me a letter to ask for the money.
I have received a separate letter from one of the claimants about Car damages as well as my insurance refused to pay because of article 75, I was using the car for commuting purposes.

I have consulted a solicitor and facts are that I was working on that day. I parked in the centre car park, I walked to a place to eat before starting my shift and I walked to work. I then walked out of work again to a place to eat before heading home.
Was I using the car for commuting purpose or does this proof class me as using the car for domestic, social and pleasure?

Also, I can get a statement from my manager I finished early on the day which is totally true to act as another piece of proof.

Appreciate your help.

Many thanks

bluelad1927

Sounds like you were commuting to me

BoGoF

Don't think your argument will work. Many people drive to somewhere before going to work. In my example I drive to the train station, park car then get train to work. Using your logic I'm not commuting to work but just driving to the station.

You need to look at the actual purpose of the journey, was it to get you to work. I would say yes. Not sure why you feel the fact you finished early is important.

Just my opinion and others are available. More importantly, what did the solicitor say?

Aretnap

It sounds to me like the purpose of your journey was mainly if not entirely to go to work, and getting some food was incidental to the journey. Would you have been driving into the city centre at all that day has you not been working that day? If I stop outside work to make a phone call, chat to a friend or go for a run before I go home it feels obvious to me that my drive home is still a commute, not a leisure or social drive, and I'm afraid I don't see that getting a bite to eat would be vastly different. 

It's a bit late to ask but why didn't you have commuting cover? In my experience SDP only cover tends to save pennies if anything over commuting cover, so there seems little reason not to add commuting of there's any possibility that you might use your car to get to work.

HampshireH

Aretnap said:

It's a bit late to ask but why didn't you have commuting cover? In my experience SDP only cover tends to save pennies if anything over commuting cover, so there seems little reason not to add commuting of there's any possibility that you might use your car to get to work.

Was going to ask exactly this. I always thought SDP and commuting was the auto default choice for people who use a car associated with getting to work. 

There is definitely no argument here that you were not on your way either too or from work when that was your destination for the day.

Sounds like a solicitor would be an expensive way forward with little chance of anything but costing you more money

DullGreyGuy

Fundamentally, and honestly, had you not been working would you still have made the identical journey at the same times?  It sounds like you are clutching at straws and really you know you were commuting so not covered as you saved some money buy not including commuting cover. 

On the plus side your insurers have acknowledged they are the Article 75 insurer. You need to have a discussion with them on how the they are proposing to deal with the third party claim. Some insurers will deal with the TP from the outset and then obviously you have to reimburse them, others will stick to the letter of the law and say you have to deal with them and they only get involved once the TP has an unsettled court judgement against you. 

Ozzig

When you took out the insurance, did you tell them you commute to work and confirm it was covered before agreeing to the policy? 
(Could a call recorded for training purposes confirm that ?)

BoGoF

Ozzig said:

When you took out the insurance, did you tell them you commute to work and confirm it was covered before agreeing to the policy? 
(Could a call recorded for training purposes confirm that ?)

Based on another thread by the OP they 'didn't know it was a thing' (cover for commuting)

TELLIT01

HampshireH said:

Aretnap said:

It's a bit late to ask but why didn't you have commuting cover? In my experience SDP only cover tends to save pennies if anything over commuting cover, so there seems little reason not to add commuting of there's any possibility that you might use your car to get to work.

Was going to ask exactly this. I always thought SDP and commuting was the auto default choice for people who use a car associated with getting to work. 

Years ago, the inclusion of commuting on a comprehensive cover policy seemed to be the default position.  That is no longer the case.  We had 2 policies, one included commuting and the other didn't.  What seemed crazy though was that adding commuting to that policy didn't increase the cost.  If there is no additional cost why isn't it included by default? 

That doesn't help the OP as he clearly was using the vehicle to get to work.

Ozzig

BoGoF said:

Ozzig said:

When you took out the insurance, did you tell them you commute to work and confirm it was covered before agreeing to the policy? 
(Could a call recorded for training purposes confirm that ?)

Based on another thread by the OP they 'didn't know it was a thing' (cover for commuting)

If only insurers had a list of options like, 

SDP
Commuting
Business

For everyone taking out insurance, the OP would have known.

DullGreyGuy

TELLIT01 said:

HampshireH said:

Aretnap said:

It's a bit late to ask but why didn't you have commuting cover? In my experience SDP only cover tends to save pennies if anything over commuting cover, so there seems little reason not to add commuting of there's any possibility that you might use your car to get to work.

Was going to ask exactly this. I always thought SDP and commuting was the auto default choice for people who use a car associated with getting to work. 

Years ago, the inclusion of commuting on a comprehensive cover policy seemed to be the default position.  That is no longer the case.  We had 2 policies, one included commuting and the other didn't.  What seemed crazy though was that adding commuting to that policy didn't increase the cost.  If there is no additional cost why isn't it included by default? 

That doesn't help the OP as he clearly was using the vehicle to get to work.

Obviously these days most people who "buy" (rather than auto renew) are buying online, a quick check at a few of the big names and most simply present the three options of SDP, SDPC or Business with helper text on what each of the three are and no default option selected. 

There is always going to be some contention on having a default option as either "needlessly upselling" if its set to something other than the cheapest option or removing the need for someone to make a choice so they could "miss" the question as the default allows the screens to progress even if its the wrong answer for the policyholder. 

Back in the days of telesales being the most common way our system didnt default to SDPC however how the agent asked the question did vary and some may ask in a more leading way (eg is SDPC the level of cover you need?) 


SD&P historically was cheaper than SDP&C, not a country mile difference but more than pennies. Obviously pricing gets more sophisticated over time and I'd imagine this could be a matter than is compounded with age so younger drivers see a bigger difference (more than just proportionally so) and older drivers it tails off to the point where almost no one has commuting anymore because they're all retired.