Avoiding Car Insurance Claims, From Being Declined
Posted by: Harvey Williams in Finance, tags: FinanceThere was a time many years ago when a company could be paid out on an insurance claim for no reason, other than for being a good and loyal client to the insurance company. Whilst it is possible that even today an insurance company could make a commercial decision when considering a claim from a very large client, many companies are at risk of having claims repudiated.
Contract hire companies nowadays see many cases where insurers have refused to pay out on claims following accidents. Naturally the larger a claim the more closely an insurance company will scrutinise it; if one of your company vehicles has a minor accident it does not make financial sense for the insurer to spend too much time on the claim. If however it is a major accident there are very sound commercial reasons why the insurance company will closely examine all aspects of the claim and the circumstances surrounding it. An Insurance company’s obligation is to its shareholders, which doesn’t include paying out on claims, if they can find good reason to invalidate it.
Many companies with company cars are not aware that the motor insurer’s terms and condition state that a vehicle must not be modified in any way, without advising them of the changes. It is for this reason safer to fit the manufacturer’s recommended tyres, with the correct speed rating. It is important that employees understand that they must not change or modify their company vehicle in any way, in order not to run the risk of invalidating the insurance. Some employers have discovered, following an accident, that an employee has done what is know as “chip” the company vehicle’s engine. This has the effect of increasing the car’s horsepower. The insurer will often, with justification, refuse to pay out a claim, because the car is more powerful than the vehicle they understood they were insuring. It also causes another problem in that it can invalidate the car’s warranty. In this eventuality it could cause the contract hire or leasing company to make a claim against the hirer; if the vehicle were for example on two years contract hire, then the hirer would be returning the vehicle without its third year warranty.
It is important to remember that an insurer requires the insured to keep a vehicle in a roadworthy condition. A high proportion of company cars are on contract hire; they are serviced regularly and are generally under warranty. Any faults or potential faults are normally rectified, by the dealership under the manufacturer’s warranty, when the vehicle is in for its service. Some companies purchase and keep their company cars for up to 4 or 5 years. Ensuring that the vehicle is always in a roadworthy condition is much more difficult under these circumstances, particularly if the mileage is high.
There are however, apart from lack of maintenance, many things that can cause a car to be un-roadworthy; if one of your company vehicles is in an accident and it is found to have the wrong tyre pressures, with the tyres under, over or unevenly inflated this could be a serious problem. It would of course depend on the circumstances of the accident; if another vehicle drove into the rear of an employee’s stationary car, it could hardly be considered a factor and it is very unlikely under these circumstances that the insurer would check the car’s roadworthiness; they would have no reason to do so.
If it is the case that the employee’s actions have clearly caused an accident, perhaps where they have lost control on a corner or failed to brake in time, then it is quite possible that the insurance company may want to inspect the vehicle, to satisfy itself that the car is in a roadworthy condition. It is not uncommon to find that company car drivers have incorrectly inflated tyres, or just neglected to check them. It is important that employees are made aware of this danger, recommending them to check their tyre pressure, when the tyres are cold, at least every two weeks. This will also help reduce the company’s overall fuel consumption.
Tyres do need to be checked for wear; probably the most practical option is to make the employee responsible. It is after all his car and his life that is at risk if he drives the vehicle in an un- roadworthy condition. The period between servicing intervals nowadays can be very long indeed. Previously, when a typical servicing interval was 12,000 miles, companies used to rely on the dealership’s servicing department telling them if a tyre needed changing. That is no longer a practical option; indeed some would question whether it is ever a practical option, to rely on a servicing department, because they do appear to have a habit of changing tyres before they need to be changed.
Another risk to the company is employees driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, an insurance company will not generally pay out if there is an accident under these circumstances. How many of your employees stop of for a “couple” of pints on the way home? In a study carried out in 1998, alcohol was a factor in 10% of fatal motorcycle accidents and 19% of cars and other vehicles involved in fatal crashes. In spite of greater awareness nowadays there are still drivers who seriously believe that they drive better after consuming alcohol. The evidence however shows that alcohol seriously impairs psychomotor skills and affects the brains ability to process information.
Companies should also be aware that if an employee drives his company car and has an accident whilst under the influence of drugs, the company could also find itself without insurance. Unfortunately there are also prescription drugs that can affect the ability to drive safely. It is however an employer’s responsibility to ensure the safety of its employees; it may be safer for an employee to ask its employees to advise them if they are taking a medicine that may affect their driving ability, after all many drugs companies advise the user not to operate machinery, or drive whilst taking a particular medication.
Another risk is when the insurance company believe that a loss has been caused by negligence on the part of the driver. An example of this would be where an employee has left his car, either on the drive or in the road, with the engine running; many do this in the winter so that when they get into the car, it is already heated up. If an employee does this, or leaves the keys in the car when at the petrol station and an opportunistic thief jumps in and drives off, the insurance company is unlikely to pay out.
It is important to ensure that all your drivers have a current driving license and that previous convictions like drink driving, if required by the insurer, have been declared. Some employers have never seen more that a photocopy of their employees’ driving licence, others take a photocopy of the original and hold it on file. This is very unsatisfactory from the company’s point of view. There have been cases of it emerging after an accident that the employee was driving whilst disqualified.
If a company’s vehicles are sourced through a broker, the larger and well established contract hire brokers are able to offer a service where they regularly check the employee’s driving licences. They can be checked when they are first employed and then at regular intervals, to make sure there are no new convictions. Once employees are aware this system is in place they are much more likely to come forward and declare a new conviction. Apart from protecting the company as far as it’s insurance is concerned; it also affords it protection from prosecution under the new legislation.
If an insurer rejects a claim and the insured feels that the insurance company is unjustified, the case can be taken to The Financial Ombudsman. There have been many claims that insurance companies have refused to pay that the Financial Ombudsman has ruled should be paid, unfortunately many claimants just accept the insurance company’s decision. A client of ours had his car stolen in a carjacking incident, the insurers refused to settle the claim for the Mercedes Benz, valued at more that 60,000. They told the client that they had repeatedly written to him advising him that he must fit tracker to the car, which he had failed to do. However when it was pointed out to the insurance company, following legal advise, that they had not told the client that he would no longer covered in the event of theft, the insurance company settled the claim in full.
The following may help to prevent a claim from being declined by an insurer; company cars should be maintained regularly and tyre pressures need to be measured frequently to ensure pressures are correct and wear is even. It should be made clear to employees that they must not modify their car in any way and that they should not ignore any warning lights that show up. It can help to reduce drink driving amongst employees if they understand that they are likely to loose their job as well as their driving licence, if caught. They should also be advised of the risks of driving if taking any form of drugs, including some prescription drugs. Make employees aware that if they leave the car with the engine running there is a very real risk of it being stolen. Also using a contract hire and leasing broker to check employees driving licences, will avoid the risk of employees driving with undeclared convictions, or whilst disqualified.
Very often when motor insurance claims are declined, the insurer claims that the driver has been negligent. Some employers, perhaps with justification, worry that company car drivers are more prone to be negligent with the company car than they would perhaps with their own vehicle. It seems that negligence is a factor in accident claims not being paid, throughout the world; following an accident in America the insurer refused to pay a claim for accident that happened when the owner of a new motorhome thought the vehicle would drive itself after he had switched to cruise control. This did not stop him taking legal action against the manufacturer of the motorhome claiming that they should have told him that cruise control didn’t encompass steering, braking and knowing where to go etc. Common sense does not appear to be a factor in the American legal system; he won his case.
Entries (RSS)