misled on insurance?

MattMattMattUK

msm55 said:

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.

I am not actually sure they have misrepresented, it seems like your "multiple breaches" are you looking for a way out of a contract you have signed.

Lots of fleet insurance policies are third-party only, or third-party fire and theft, the business then self insures the cost of the vehicles should damage occur, that can mean that you would be insured, but the policy would not state comprehensive. The excesses are often high when they let out vehicles as private hire as most of the damage normally falls below that threshold, minor scuffs and bumps at low speed, so the drier pays. If the vehicle was written off then it would be covered, less the excess, by the way they self insure. You also seem to think that you should be a named benificiary for insurance on a fleet insured vehicle, but you would not be as you are not the owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle is damaged the lease company pays for the repairs, less the excess, which you pay. If the vehicle is written off then either the lease ends, or they provide you with a suitable replacement vehicle for the remainder of the lease. As others have pointed out your lease policy could well mean exactly that.

msm55 said:

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.

Or as seems most likely, you are misunderstanding what the actual situation is.

If you are undertaking this all in good faith, rather than just looking to try and get out of the lease for other reasons, then you need to approach this rationally and methodically, rather than throwing around accusations of breach of contract and demanding to cancel the lease. You need to ask them to confirm, in writing, under what legal basis you are insured, you need to read the policy documents you have, not just the insurance, but lease also. 

MyRealNameToo

msm55 said:

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.

You need to read the rest of the contract, in particular the sections on your termination rights and the consequences of termination. 

Not sure what risk you think you are running? You have third party liability cover so there is no risk of a TP pursuing you. Whilst arguably there is a risk around their insolvency and own vehicle damage but it becomes circular as they are the ones liable for repairing the car and your exposure is limited to the excess which you'd also have were it a comp policy. 

MyRealNameToo

MattMattMattUK said:
Lots of fleet insurance policies are third-party only, or third-party fire and theft, the business then self insures the cost of the vehicles should damage occur, that can mean that you would be insured, but the policy would not state comprehensive.

Some companies do self insure, as in they own a captive insurance company that is licensed to issue certificates of insurance. This gives them access to the reinsurance market to pass off the high end risk and avoids the high brokerage on the primary policy. There are various firms out there that will run your captive for you at a relatively modest price but it does leave you exposed to IPT.

Hire car companies are very careful not to actually talk about "insurance" but instead say you are "covered for" or "protected against" as most are not licensed to sell insurance and most arent selling something provided by a licensed insurance company. Hence hire companies offer CDW as an excess waiver whereas third parties sell excess insurance. 

I appreciate on here we often talking about being uninsured as being self insured and some mean self insured a little more formally as in they formally put money aside to pay for losses rather than just relying on a credit card for unexpected spend but when it comes providing insurance to other parties laws become different. Hence why certain firms have spent a lot of time and money to ensure their products dont legally count as insurance even if on here people talk about extended warranties as insurance etc. 

msm55

MattMattMattUK said:

If you are undertaking this all in good faith, rather than just looking to try and get out of the lease for other reasons, then you need to approach this rationally and methodically, rather than throwing around accusations of breach of contract and demanding to cancel the lease. You need to ask them to confirm, in writing, under what legal basis you are insured, you need to read the policy documents you have, not just the insurance, but lease also. 

I have been undertaking all of this in good faith. I do not want to be out of work by just returning the car if what they have done is by the book or as per the agreement. I have now realised that my interpretation of being a named beneficiary under the policy is most probably incorrect. But I still think when you market something as full ‘comprehensive insurance’ that means full comprehensive insurance by an actual insurance company not this self insure crap so no reasonable person can infer it to be “self insurance” 

Mildly_Miffed

msm55 said:

But I still think when you market something as full ‘comprehensive insurance’ that means full comprehensive insurance by an actual insurance company not this self insure crap so no reasonable person can infer it to be “self insurance” 

The only difference is who pays the bill for any at-fault damage to this vehicle.

Third party? You.
"Proper insurance" comp? Not you. (Insurance company)
This setup? Not you. (Hire firm)

Is the difference between the second and third of those relevant to your pocket? No.

This really is a mountain out of a molehill.

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

Not sure what risk you think you are running? You have third party liability cover so there is no risk of a TP pursuing you. Whilst arguably there is a risk around their insolvency and own vehicle damage but it becomes circular as they are the ones liable for repairing the car and your exposure is limited to the excess which you'd also have were it a comp policy. 

Well that’s the thing, as per the agreement I’m liable for all the damages and repairs to the car. Because of this self insure cover they can easily turn down a claim as nothing in regards to this is defined. 

If I could please ask for yours and others input on slightly separate issue. I have mentioned before in this thread that I do not wish to use their Claims Management Company. Question is, can they force me to do so? 

When I asked them whether I’m under any contractual obligation to use their CMC or am I free to pursue the claim independently. Their response was that whilst I’m free to do so and claim responsibility will rest with me, the car must be repaired by company’s approved garage list. I asked for the list as I planned on using it to get the car repaired. 

A week later the above response changed, asserting they are at liberty to initiate proceedings with their CMC and they’d like me to me sign the agreement with them. And that the decision they need from is whether I’d cooperate with them for the repairs and credit hire vehicle. 

When I enquired about the contradiction, they responded back saying the contract gives them the right to do so i.e. unilaterally initiate proceedings with their CMC and I cannot pursue the claim independently. They relied on the following clause. 

4.3.2 must notify the relevant insurer that the Vehicle is hired from us and our interest must be noted on the relevant insurance policy(ies). You shall at our request and your expense, assign to us all your rights, benefits, and claims under any relevant insurance policy(ies);

Their reliance on the above clause is, I think, incorrect. The above clause 4.3.2 stems from or is sub clause of 4.3 which states:

4.3 If, at any time, you are no longer eligible to be a named beneficiary under the Fleet Policy for whatever reason (including, but not limited to, where we or the insurer notify you of the same), you:

they can’t reasonably use 4.3.2 as a standalone clause without also satisfying the condition in 4.3 that triggers it.

And even if it was to be applied, it refers to their rights under my insurance policy in case I have to insure myself following my ineligibility under their fleet policy, not rights over a third party claim.
So their latest position is thst it’ll be a breach of contract if I was to pursue the claim independently.  

Okell

You're doing this as a business aren't you?

You ought to be paying for professional legal advice rather than asking on a MSE forum