Accident with substandard tyres, insurance company refusing cover. Options?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leo said:
Who provides cover for your own losses as a result of criminal activity?
Click to expand...
Nobody AFAIK, but you have now changed the question that you answered above.
I never mentioned 'your own losses' , I was simply pointing out (re. cremeeggs question, "will your insurance cover you ...") that I disagreed with your answer to said question and that you are still covered whilst 'criminally' driving.
 

Yeah, fair enough. I was focusing solely on the personal loss piece as this thread is only about the OP's own losses, there doesn't seem to be any issue with the 3rd party liability cover.
 

As I said this has nothing got to do with the NCT.

It was suggested that passing the NCT should ensure safety of Tyres but in this case the incident was eight months post test.
 
Cervelo said:
This to me implies that the insurance company is not paying out at all, neither the policy holder nor the third party
Click to expand...

1) The insurance will pay out for third party, there is no question of them not. They have done nothing wrong here. They may though look (unlikely though) to recover their losses from the OP.

2) They (Insurance Company) would be quite within their rights to reduce comprehensive payment, if the tyres are found to be in un-roadworthy condition, and especially if they contributed to the accident resulting in an avoidable loss. They carry the risk, but in doing so, expect you to do your part in maintaining the vehicle to a roadworthy standard.
 
Would you argue that the insurance company should pay out if the car had no NCT? Or if the driver was drunk? One of the requirements for your insurance to be valid is that the vehicle is maintained and roadworthy. Driving around with bald tyres is perfectly good grounds for the insurance company to reject a claim.
 
could i jump in and ask a quick question ,does insurance companies have a tyre max age limit (how many years old)?
 
Leo said:
Yeah, fair enough. I was focusing solely on the personal loss piece as this thread is only about the OP's own losses, there doesn't seem to be any issue with the 3rd party liability cover.
Click to expand...

Just a clarification if I may as this point does cause confusion.

Some acts of driving can be both simultaneously a criminal offence and a civil wrong (like the tort of negligence).
The insurers are indemnifying in respect of the tortious liability element and that is a contract which enjoys legality of purpose.

For example, D may be drunk, drive dangerously and smash in to another car.
The insurers will provide indemnity in respect of the tortious act of negligence.
 
Reactions: Leo
DirectDevil said:
unstacked, have you made any progress with Aviva on this issue ?
Click to expand...
Sorry update - they didnt pay out for my car. Third party claim for personal accident damages is coming against my insurance. Even though I had Step Back and Bonus Protected - Insurance will greatly increase in October. its all over now and I am taking it on board as an expensive lesson and obviously something that could have been much much worse than a written off car and bruised bank account.

This is the reply from Insurance:

"Please note we wish confirm that our investigations into policy cover are complete and regret to advise that we are not in a position to provide you with an indemnity in respect of this claim.

As previously advised your car was examined by an Independent Engineer following the collision it was noted on the engineers report that three of your tyres were below the legal limit. We further note that your husband has confirmed that it was raining & hail stoning on the day of the incident and therefore the road conditions were wet. This, together with the condition of the tyres greatly contributed to the accident.

As discussed, this constitutes a serious breach of your policy conditions:

The General Conditions of your motor policy state

Section 6 - Duty to take Care

You must take all reasonable steps to prevent accident, injury, loss or damage, and must keep your car in a roadworthy condition. While unattended, the car must not be left unlocked, or the keys to the ignition left with or in the car windows or sunroof left open. Personal belongings should be placed in the locked boot, glove box or closed storage compartment when your car is unattended. You must ensure that the car is kept in a roadworthy condition, which includes ensuring that the thread depth on your car tyres are within the legal limits and if required that your car has a current & valid National Car Test (NCT) certificate. You must ensure the car is properly compliant with all Road Traffic Legislation at all times. You must allow us to examine your car at any time.

Please note that you are in breach of the condition outlined above as your husband xxxxx was driving with three of your four tyres below the legal thread depth at the time of the accident and therefore we are not in a position to indemnify you in respect of this incident.

We have informed our underwriters in relation to this. Please note that will not be making any offer of settlement in relation to damage to your own vehicle."
 
unstacked said:
You must ensure that the car is kept in a roadworthy condition, which includes ensuring that the thread depth on your car tyres are within the legal limits
Click to expand...

That is crystal clear.

I wonder how many people know this?

I hope that they do renew your insurance for you.

Brendan
 
Sorry but can you clarify if the insurance company are paying out for the third party claim??
 
Thanks for coming back to do an update. Greatly appreciated even if you still did not get a payout for your car.
 
SparkRite said:
I take from this that they did :-
Click to expand...
unstacked said:
Sorry update - they didnt pay out for my car. Third party claim for personal accident damages is coming against my insurance.
Click to expand...

I thought the same but then the OP quoted the reply from the insurance company which says

unstacked said:
Please note we wish confirm that our investigations into policy cover are complete and regret to advise that we are not in a position to provide you with an indemnity in respect of this claim.
Click to expand...

So are they covered in respect to the third party claim??
 
Cervelo said:
I thought the same but then the OP quoted the reply from the insurance company which says

So are they covered in respect to the third party claim??
Click to expand...

I'm sure the OP is, else it would just make a mockery of motor insurance in its entirety.
 
Clamball said:
Thanks for coming back to do an update. Greatly appreciated even if you still did not get a payout for your car.
Click to expand...
Have to think it happened to prevent something much much worse happening...and that is the only way to view it. Even if car had an NCT for 7 months and was off the road for 3 of those 7...doesn't mean your tyres are ok. Even though at the start I was fuming and blaming husband..I now count myself lucky...and own it.
 
Thanks for the update.

There is confusion about a refusal of indemnity whilst simultaneously dealing with the third party claim.
The insurers are not indemnifying the OP in respect of the third party claim.
The insurers are dealing with the third party claim because they have to under statute.
This is a scenario where refusal of indemnity cannot deny a third party their entitlement to claim.
Technically, the insurers could actually approach OP after settlement seeking recovery of their outlay on the third party claim.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
That is crystal clear.

I wonder how many people know this?

I hope that they do renew your insurance for you.

Brendan
Click to expand...

The moral is that people must read and understand that colloquially termed "small print" and become aware of their contractual obligations.

It seems to me that wordings can vary between insurers.
I have a motor policy with a different company and it contains no such strictures beyond the more conventional one of requiring the policyholder to take reasonable precautions to keep the vehicle in good repair. There are certainly no severe limitations coming down to the level of detail quoted for that Aviva policy.

IMHO the Aviva contract wording seems very restrictive and unreasonable from the perspective of the reasonable customer.
I still hold a lot of sympathy for OP on the merits.

An appeal to the Ombudsman perhaps ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register