Car insurance - car destroyed in Luton Airport car park fire or other commercial building

carefulrider

Following the Luton Airport car park fire (and any other commercial building fire), what was the experience of forum members with their insurance companies regarding 

- the claim being "Fault" or "Non Fault" , either at the start of the claim or at the end.

- the excess being applied and, therefore, the forum member suffering a financial loss.

I am particularly interested in the approach taken by the main insurance companies (please name the company).

(According to their website, following the Luton fire,  LV= waived the excess and protected the NCD.  Well done LV=.)

Thank you.

cw8825

IS this for research prior to buying a new policy, or just out of interest?

Aretnap

The starting point for any fire claim (whether or not in a commercial building) is that it is recorded as a fault claim, it affects your NCD, and that your excess is payable. As with any other claim, the only way this would change is if there is someone else whose negligence caused the incident that led to the claim, and that person can be identified, and your insurer can recover their costs from that person (or their insurer).

The Luton airport fire was a special case. As a national news event involving hundreds of cars, many insurers decided in the interests of good publicity to waive excesses as a one-off act of goodwill. How they dealt with that event didn't really say very much about how they would deal with a more minor fire which damaged a couple of cars. And to be honest, the way an insurer dealt with a one-off major national news story doesn't feel like a very good basis for choosing an insurance company, given the vanishingly small chance of you being involved in a similar event.

MX5huggy

The way insurance treats fire cases is I believe a major hole in most people’s cover, that they aren’t aware of and I don’t see how to cover it either. 

If a car has an electrical fault that causes a fire (the most common cause of car fires) then you aren’t covered because car insurance is not for mechanical or electrical faults even though you maybe left with just a smouldering shell. 

cw8825

MX5huggy said:

The way insurance treats fire cases is I believe a major hole in most people’s cover, that they aren’t aware of and I don’t see how to cover it either. 

If a car has an electrical fault that causes a fire (the most common cause of car fires) then you aren’t covered because car insurance is not for mechanical or electrical faults even though you maybe left with just a smouldering shell. 

Unless it was down to west and tear. And could be foreseen by a reasonable person. It would likely be covered. 

Eg - if the cause of fire was something that was mentioned on the most recent MOT. But customer has carried on regardless 

Jfk1988

MX5huggy said:

The way insurance treats fire cases is I believe a major hole in most people’s cover, that they aren’t aware of and I don’t see how to cover it either. 

If a car has an electrical fault that causes a fire (the most common cause of car fires) then you aren’t covered because car insurance is not for mechanical or electrical faults even though you maybe left with just a smouldering shell. 

Actually this would usually still be covered, although the actual mechanical issue wouldn't be. It's similar to an unexpected tyre blowout that causes someone to swerve into a wall, the tyre itself wouldn't be covered but the resulting bodywork damage is.

Obviously with the smouldering shell situation it would be harder to separate what is and isn't covered, so in practice it would be a write off payout.

carefulrider

cw8825 said:

IS this for research prior to buying a new policy, or just out of interest?

Thank you.  It is research on behalf of someone with an insured vehicle in the circumstances outlined.

If anyone has personal experience of this, a posting would be helpful.

cw8825

carefulrider said:

cw8825 said:

IS this for research prior to buying a new policy, or just out of interest?

Thank you.  It is research on behalf of someone with an insured vehicle in the circumstances outlined.

If anyone has personal experience of this, a posting would be helpful.

As above. The Luton fire was a special case. Unless this is another televised fire impacting thousands you can’t compare to that 

if claiming off their own policy. 

It will be a fault claim and excess would be applicable (it may be waived in some claims at insurers discretion)
insurer will then look to make a recovery from the negligent party responsible 
if a full recovery is made it will then be settled non fault
if not then it will be settled as a fault
claim 

to be honest the approach taken by various insurers is largely irrelevant. 

It will come down to the insurer that person is with and the specific circumstances of the current fire. 

DullGreyGuy

It is unfortunate that the insurance industry decided to land on the term "fault" many many moons ago but we are where we are. 

In traditional insurance "fault" has nothing to do with blame. A "fault claim" is simply one where at the end of the claim the insurer has on a net basis paid out monies on an allocated cost basis (ie paying something specifically for your case not just the general costs of operating a claims department etc). So you hit a stationary vehicle, fault claim as you are liable, an insured person hits your stationary vehicle a non-fault claim as the insurer reimburses them, a theft of your car is a fault claim as theives are rarely identified and even if they are they rarely have the means to payback the monies. 

Lots of people dont think this is "fair" because an uninsured driver hits your stationary car and it suddenly becomes "your fault" because they dont have the £20,000 to reimburse your insurers. As such various insurers have come out with "promises", initially there was Direct Line's uninsured driver promise but others have come out with others over time. These can relate to excess, NCD or both. 

Luton fire was a high profile event and as such some insurers decided to give more generous solutions than required by their policy terms to avoid negative press/hope to get positive press. There was no legal obligation for them to do so and it wasnt universal. 

carefulrider

Thank you CW8825 and DGG, and all other posters.

It's clear now that it will be, at least in the immediate term, a 'Fault' claim with deduction of excess.

On their motor policy, the insured person paid an additional premium (£25) for Legal Expenses cover.

I assume that this can be used at some point to attempt to recover the excess.

Next question: how long after the insured event should the insured person wait before telephoning the Legal Cover Helpline number about recovery of the excess (substantial)?  All replies very welcome as it is such a fraught and stressful matter.

Mildly_Miffed

carefulrider said:

On their motor policy, the insured person paid an additional premium (£25) for Legal Expenses cover.

I assume that this can be used at some point to attempt to recover the excess.

Next question: how long after the insured event should the insured person wait before telephoning the Legal Cover Helpline number about recovery of the excess (substantial)?  All replies very welcome as it is such a fraught and stressful matter.

They can phone the helpline now.

But I suspect the helpline will tell them the same as you've been told here - that the insurer's failure to apply a particular goodwill measure in one exceptional case does not set a precedent for other, less exceptional, ones.

The excess is, of course, a figure the policyholder chose in advance when buying the policy.