misled on insurance?

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

So what's in the  Vehicle Driver Handbook?

It just details general requirements for the use of the vehicle i.e. servicing / maintenance / recover & breakdown / accident reporting & damage etc. 

There is a section called ‘Fleet Insurance Policy Summary’ and it contains insurer’s details, level of cover as comprehensive, excess, driver criteria (4.2/4.3 above refers to this eligibility), what is insured and what is not. 

I’m still eligible as per the criteria / eligibility. 

Point being as per the agreement I should be named beneficiary under the policy, therefore I think, I have the right to see their full policy wording (at least the redacted version) as being a named beneficiary it governs my rights and liabilities, not just the agreement. 

MyRealNameToo

It would certainly seem there has been a breach in contract but not necessarily an issue for the regulator given it was not a regulated contract. 

With a breach of contract you'd have to show what losses you have sustained and assuming the claim goes through as the 95% of claims involving accident management companies do then I struggle to see what loss you've sustained. 

What may be of more interest is if the breach of contract is sufficient for you to terminate the contract on more favourable terms as some contracts will have such clauses with different costs depending on who's "fault" the cancellation is. 

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

It would certainly seem there has been a breach in contract but not necessarily an issue for the regulator given it was not a regulated contract. 

You say that because of potential misrepresentation on the insurance part or the fact they have refused to share policy wording despite being named beneficiary under the contract? Or both? 

MyRealNameToo

msm55 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

It would certainly seem there has been a breach in contract but not necessarily an issue for the regulator given it was not a regulated contract. 

You say that because of potential misrepresentation on the insurance part or the fact they have refused to share policy wording despite being named beneficiary under the contract? Or both? 

You stated the contract references you to the drivers handbook to see the level of insurance and the handbook gives details of the insurer etc and states that policy is comprehensive cover but they are now stating that it is wrong. 

They could have worded it in a different way to say your overall protection is "comprehensive" with it actually being made up of a TPO policy and a non-insurance cover for own damages but from how you say its worded it sounds like they have failed to provide you with what you've paid for hence its a breach. 

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

You stated the contract references you to the drivers handbook to see the level of insurance and the handbook gives details of the insurer etc and states that policy is comprehensive cover but they are now stating that it is wrong. 

They could have worded it in a different way to say your overall protection is "comprehensive" with it actually being made up of a TPO policy and a non-insurance cover for own damages but from how you say its worded it sounds like they have failed to provide you with what you've paid for hence its a breach. 

Yeah I agree, they should have made it clear. And if they had, I would not have signed that agreement. 

Also, from my understanding and plain reading of Clause 4.2/4.3, it’s quite clear the agreement places me as named beneficiary under their policy fleet policy. 

However, their recent email to me contradicts what the agreement says. 

With respect to your point on clauses 4.2 and 4.3, you are designated as a beneficiary of insurance coverage through your signed HP agreement, not as a named beneficiary under our fleet policy. These clauses pertain solely to the former and do not govern the latter

It seems they are trying to draw a distinction that does not exist to cover for the fact they have failed to secure my status as named beneficiary under the policy. Also there’s no definition in the agreement for ‘Named Beneficiary’.

I was relying on those 2 clauses to ask for policy wording. 

MattMattMattUK

Reading all this what seems unclear is what you are actually trying to achieve? Is this a convoluted scheme to try and get out of the hire contract?

msm55

MattMattMattUK said:

Reading all this what seems unclear is what you are actually trying to achieve? Is this a convoluted scheme to try and get out of the hire contract?

I have mentioned above that I’m looking to terminate the contract because of multiple breaches. Misrepresentation and contradicting their own agreement isn’t something I am willing to overlook, especially something as crucial as the insurance; directly affecting both my financial exposure and the risk I was led to believe I was covered.

user1977

But has it actually resulted in any cost to you?

msm55

user1977 said:

But has it actually resulted in any cost to you?

Nothing yet. But that’s not the point. The fact is they sold something which isn’t what they promised it to be.

sheramber

if it was a non fault accident are the other party's insurance not repairing the vehicle?