Insurers default stance - it's your fault

MallorcaMike
MallorcaMike Posts: 12 Forumite
First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
in Motoring
A few weeks ago, late at night, an arsonist started 3 separate fires in Husbands Bosworth. The first was at a care home, the second involved a van parked in the street, and the last a residential complex, where a young family had a narrow escape and their flat was heavily damaged.

During this last fire, two cars belonging to my daughter and son-in-law were completely destroyed, along with their contents. A suspect was later arrested and charged with arson with intent to endanger life.

One of the vehicle insurers has taken the stance that my family is at fault because there is no proof to the contrary (there is plenty, if they could be bothered about their customer). As a result, any new insurance arrangements are harder to arrange and are much more expensive.

Insurance claims are never much fun and usually leave us feeling short changed, but this is beyond ridiculous. Anyone else had a similar experience and can anything be done?
«1

Comments

  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 8,212 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    They are probably working on the basis that in this country we still have the principle that someone "arrested and charged with arson with intent to endanger life" is presumed innocent until found guilty.
  • facade
    facade Posts: 7,026 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    It is probably an "At fault" claim as the insurance company cannot recover their payout from the culprit.
    Contact the insurer and find out if this is the case, and how it will change when the alleged culprit is convicted.




    "At fault" doesn't necessarily mean your fault, insurers are like Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty.
    I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....

    (except air quality and Medical Science ;))
  • James2k
    James2k Posts: 300 Forumite
    Car_54 wrote: »
    They are probably working on the basis that in this country we still have the principle that someone "arrested and charged with arson with intent to endanger life" is presumed innocent until found guilty.
    yeah i'm sure you would adopt that attitude if your own car was set on fire. then you got an insurance hike.

    The sanctimony in this forum
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,162 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Did you have a crime reference number?
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,162 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Car_54 wrote: »
    They are probably working on the basis that in this country we still have the principle that someone "arrested and charged with arson with intent to endanger life" is presumed innocent until found guilty.
    Well, the crime was committed, regardless whether they've got the right person and they are convicted.


    Presumably the insurance is against the crime, not any sentence which may or may not be handed out...
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,162 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    facade wrote: »
    It is probably an "At fault" claim as the insurance company cannot recover their payout from the culprit.
    Contact the insurer and find out if this is the case, and how it will change when the alleged culprit is convicted.

    "At fault" doesn't necessarily mean your fault, insurers are like Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty.
    That would be stretching the definition of "at fault", unless the "fault" is that you own a car at all...
  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 14,686 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    prowla wrote: »
    That would be stretching the definition of "at fault", unless the "fault" is that you own a car at all...

    In terms of insurance, at fault means they costs aren't recovered thus the buck stops with the insured.
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Herzlos wrote: »
    In terms of insurance, at fault means they costs aren't recovered thus the buck stops with the insured.

    Exactly. Come out and someones smashed into your car and driven off.
    You are deemed 'at fault' as there is nobody to claim against.

    @James2k

    Wind your neck in son.
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    MallorcaMike wrote: »

    Insurance claims are never much fun and usually leave us feeling short changed, but this is beyond ridiculous. Anyone else had a similar experience and can anything be done?

    As advised already, you are mistaken

    They won't have said that this is " your fault" at all.

    They have so far been unable to get reimbursed their outlay and thus your claim is a "fault" claim. Nothing to do with "blame"

    If the insurer does get reimbursed by the arsonist (probably unlikely) then the claim will be marked as non fault. Any lost NCD will be restored.

    Till then you must disclose the claim to other insurers you approach for quotes as a fault claim
  • James2k
    James2k Posts: 300 Forumite
    custardy wrote: »
    @James2k

    Wind your neck in son.
    haha, get over yourself.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards