Motor Cover for hire car

F

Firebrand

Registered User
Messages
12
Hi,

I'm new to this forum and this is my first post so please, be gentle with me!

I have a car insce policy with Chartis Insce Ireland Ltd (formerly AIG Ireland Ltd). I'm going over to visit family in the UK in a few weeks and want to hire a car whilst I'm over there. So I checked with my broker, 25Plus.ie that I would be covered. Long story short, they say "No". 25PLus.ie say:
"Unfortunately, we are unable to transfer your policy to a car which has been hired by you - this is one of the assumptions that you must agree to you when temporarily transferring your insurance."

They are trying tomaintain that this "transfer" amounts to a "temporary adjustment" of my policy but my view is that I am simply acting in accordance with the wording of the policy (for which see below) and so there can't be any adjustment.

My actual policy document wording says:
"If your Certificate permits you to drive a car that is:hired to you,(my underlining and highlighting),a member of your family or your employer
we will pay the amount of damages,claimant's costs and expenses plus any other costs agreed between us in writing arising from
a)death or bodily injury to any other person;
b)accidental damage to the property of any other person; for which you are liable at law resulting from an accident during the period of insurance involving any borrowed vehicle."

My Cert. of Insce says:
"The Policyholder may also drive a motor car not belonging to him/her or hired to him/her under a hiring agreement" (again,my highlighting).

I maintain that I am entitled to rely on the policy wording and that the policy is a contract between me and AIG and not between me and 25Plus.ie who are only the broker/agent. I do not see how 25Plus.ie can override/ignore the policy wording.

25Plus.ie refuse to budge; they interpret the wording in the Cert of Insce as reading:
" Your certificate of insurance states "The policyholder may also drive a car not belonging to him/her or hired to him/her under a hiring agreement." This alone confirms that you are not insured to drive a hire vehicle."

I do not accept their interpretation and have insisted that they refer the matter to AIG who are the Underwriters, my view being that any interpretation of wording is a matter for Underwriters and not an agent or broker.

I just wondered if any members had any thoughts/could suggest any further action I could take (I have already advised 25Plus.ie that I intend to refer thematter to the Financial Ombudsman if they persist in refusingto contact the Underwriters). Because I took the policy out using the auspices of 25Plus.ie, I doubt that AIG will agree tocorrespond with me direct.

All help would be very much appreciated.Many thanks.
 
The matter is straightforward and clear and that wording is consistent with policies I've had in recent years. Your cover is defined by the clauses in the policy booklet and the endorsements in the insurance certificate; neither document on its own can define the totality of your contract for cover with the insurance company / underwriters and the attendant conditions, endorsements and exclusions.

You have no cover under your policy to drive a car hired to you; you need additional insurance cover and your wasting your time pursuing the matter, IMHO.

Firebrand said:
... My Cert. of Insce says: "The Policyholder may also drive a motor car not belonging to him/her or hired to him/her under a hiring agreement" (again,my highlighting). ...
Click to expand...
Sorry I just re-read the above and feel it could be clearer. I believe I understand what it means to convey, but my own insurance has much more precise wording. I am insured to drive my own identified cars plus "Any Motor Car being driven by the Insured, provided such vehicle does not belong to the Insured and is not hired to the Insured under a hiring agreement".
 
Last edited:
'Motor car' on private car insurance basically refers to PRIVATE cars. Cars on car hire fleet are deemed by insurers to be 'commercial'
 
Thank you both for your replies.

Mathepac, you have hit the nail on the head.My entire argument is that the Certificate wording is open to interpretation and is far from clear.The basis for my interpretation lies in the wording of S7 of the Policy Document which, to my mind, mirrors that of the Certificate; the only variation being that the Policy document is set out as (a) and (b)and the Certificate uses a /. The on-line agent/broker is attempting to suggest that the word "not" applies to both usages viz: car not belonging to my/my family and to the hire car. I do not agree with that. You have to read the words which are there; you can't simply start moving them about to suit your own purpose. Had I had a policy with wording a specific as yours then I obviously would have no case but I think both the agent and the Insurance company have been caught on the hop and are now trying to impose a meaning which suits them but which wasn't clearly set out originally. Indeed, the agent has now sent me a revised Certificate in which the wording has been changed (with their interpretation of course). I have rejected this on the grounds that the matter is still u/e bewteen us.

Ravima, thanks for that. Mmmmm,don't think I necessarily agree with you; what is the point of having a clause in the Policy which refers to a hire car if the possibility of cover (subject of course to the wording of the Cert. of Insce) doesn't arise? Also, I have in the past, obtained cover for a hire car by simply paying an additional premium. This is what I asked my agent/broker to do but received a flat "No" in response.

One further question, you'll see that I've said above that a revised Cert of Insce has now been sent to me. Given that this subject is still u/e between me and the agent/Insurance company, can they arbitrarily amend it like that? Surely there must be regulations under which Insurance companies and/or agents/brokers are required to act?
 
Just thought I'd update you all on the result of my disagreement with the on-line agent and insurance company on the subject matter.

I won.

The insurance company agreed to honour the wording in the Policy document and the on-line agent re-imbursed the cost of my UK car hire as a gesture of goodwill. The isnce company has since amended its wording to make clear tht cover does not extend to hire cars. I involved the IIF (Irish Insurance Federation) and they supported my argument.Basically, it's no good an insurance company coming along and saying" well, that's not what we meant to say"; the obligation to word a document correctly is theirs, not ours. If the wording says they insure a hire car (or is so ambiguously worded that any sensible interpretation is that they do) then the insurance company has to abide by the wording. After all, it's their responsibility to make sure they get it right.
So, Ravima and Mathepac, contrary to your suggestion that I would be wasting my time,I suggest that the moral of this tale is, if you know you're right, fight! I did, and I won!.
 
Thanks Mathepac. I'm now into my next battle; how to get a refund of VAT from non-ESB Electricity suppliers on the part of a bill which would be covered by the (Household Benefits) Electrcity Allowance. I shan't give up until I meet an un-knock-downable brick wall. Watch this space!
 
Hi Blacksheep,

just as a matter of interest, have you tried to get something done on this one?

If I do (sorry, when I do) win, I propose to contact the press so that all those folk who are also being short-changed get to know about it.

I used to work in the UK Revenue and do have an advantage in knowing how Govt depts and civil servants work plus, I know where to look to get the legal lowdown on a matter so that I know my legal entitlements before the jobs-worths try to tell me otherwise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top