Articles
Newsletter
| Avoid Company Car Insurance Claims Being Repudiated |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Harvey Williams |
| Thursday, 24 July 2008 20:16 |
|
For many years perhaps right up until the Thatcher years of the 1980s attitudes in business and towards insurance companies in particular, were different; clients tended to remain with the same insurance company for years and there was considerably less "shopping around" than there is today. In turn the insurance company's approach to the client was different; if you were a loyal client that had been with the company for years they would on occasions consider paying a claim that they might have otherwise rejected. In today's more commercial world, for an Insurance company to pay a claim, where they believe they have grounds for declining it, the claimant would need to be a very sizeable client, representing a considerable amount of profitability to the company, loyalty is unlikely to play a part in the decision. When a vehicle is on contract hire, the contract hire company owns the vehicle but the hirer insures it. Therefore when an insurance company refuses to pay a claim, the hirer becomes responsible and contract hire companies are seeing this happen more frequently. In the case of minor accidents, insurance companies rarely look too closely at the circumstances. However in the event of a serious accident, it makes very sound financial sense for the insurance company to examine the circumstances of the accident and take a close look at the driver. An insurance company is answerable to its shareholders and its shareholders would not appreciate it paying out claims when it has good grounds for refusing to do so. 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. Also the company car must be kept in a roadworthy condition. If a company vehicle is on contract hire, then there is usually not much to worry about; it will on average be less than two years old and regularly serviced and maintained. In a case where a company buys and keeps it's vehicles for longer than the typical contract hire term, maybe four or five years, then ensuring they are, in what an insurance company would consider is a roadworthy condition, can be more difficult. The risk of a vehicle developing a fault that could make it un-roadworthy generally increases, the higher the mileage. It is not only lack of maintenance that can cause a vehicle to be un roadworthy, it can often be a failing on the part of the driver; incorrect tyre pressure is the most common reason. Driving with the tyres incorrectly inflated can be very dangerous, particularly if the roads are wet. If one of the company vehicles is in an accident and the accident is of a serious nature, then the insurance company will normally check the vehicle's roadworthiness. Of course if another motorist were clearly at fault then the insurer would have no reason to check the condition of the vehicle. 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. A risk to the company's insurance cover that is often overlooked by companies is when employees drive their company cars whilst having exceeded the legal limit of alcohol consumption. The risk is higher outside of office hours, when employees stop for a drink on their way home, or at weekends. Whilst it may be outside office hours, it is still the company's vehicle and insurance. It was revealed in a study in 1998 that in 10% of motorcycle accidents where there was a fatality and 19% of fatal car accidents, alcohol was involved. It seems extraordinary that even today with all the increased publicity, there are drivers who believe their driving skills are enhanced following alcohol consumption. The same will apply if the employee is under the influence of drugs. The company should also take into account that an employee may be taking a prescription drug that could affect their ability to drive safely. It would perhaps not be unreasonable for a company to check with an employee if they feel this could be the case. With the new legislation that comes into force in April 2008, the company is responsible for ensuring that its employees are safe when driving on company business. Employees should also be told that they must not, however cold the weather is, go out and start the car and leave the engine running to warm the car up. However comfortable this may make the drive into work, it is highly risky; if someone got into the car and drove off, as has happened many times, the insurance company will not pay out for a vehicle stolen under these circumstances. The same applies if an employee leaves the keys in the car at a petrol station whilst they go to the cash desk. If the company vehicles are to be insured whilst on the road, the driver must have a valid driving licence. There are many employers that believe that taking a photocopy of an employee's driving licence is all that is necessary. Some have never seen the original and accept a photocopy provided by the employee, only to discover following an accident, that the employee had been previously 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. In summary it can help to avoid claims being declined by observing the following: Ensure that the vehicle is properly and regularly maintained; Tyre pressures should be checked at least every two weeks, preferably when cold; No modifications should be made to a vehicle, without informing the insurance company; Drivers must take action if a warning light is illuminated; Employees should be warned of the dangers of driving whilst in excess of the legal limit for alcohol consumption; Drugs, including prescription drugs, can affect a driver's ability to drive safely. Drug testing is now used by some companies, up to 80% of large US companies test for drugs, although there are concerns regarding false positives; Vehicles should never be left unattended, with the engine running; Use one of the specialist companies or a contract hire broker to regularly check employee's driving licences. Observing these points will at least help to avoid motor insurance claims being repudiated 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. About the Author: For more information about contract hire, lease purchase, finance lease or vehicle hire purchase in the UK please contact Bowater Price plc http://www.bowaterprice.com Tel - 01494 536 536. Kindly provided by LJ-Marketing.dk You are welcome to use this article on your own website, if you include the link just before this text. |
| Last Updated on Saturday, 17 January 2009 09:54 |
Stumble It!
Members : 1254
Content : 2297
Web Links : 1
Content View Hits : 310267
Content : 2297
Web Links : 1
Content View Hits : 310267