Insured or Not?

[mornshow16]

Hello,
I’ve read a few threads on here and many people seem to be correct when giving advice.

My question to everyone is the following:
Had an accident 16 months ago. I called to report the accident straight after it happened and said I was coming home from work.
Surprise, that wasn’t included in my policy and I am deemed at fault. My Insurance company refused to cover any of the costs because I breached the contract.
I tried to argue with them that was not clear to me that I thought I was covered for everything. No luck
They have now sent me a letter to ask for the money.
I have received a separate letter from one of the claimants about Car damages as well as my insurance refused to pay because of article 75, I was using the car for commuting purposes.

I have consulted a solicitor and facts are that I was working on that day. I parked in the centre car park, I walked to a place to eat before starting my shift and I walked to work. I then walked out of work again to a place to eat before heading home.
Was I using the car for commuting purpose or does this proof class me as using the car for domestic, social and pleasure?

Also, I can get a statement from my manager I finished early on the day which is totally true to act as another piece of proof.

Appreciate your help.

Many thanks

 

[robj20]

Yes.

 

[Rroff]

I assume you only had SD&P cover without commuting and already told them you were driving to or from work, you might be able to get away with a technicality if you weren't parked at work itself but they can probably play the regular same use angle and you'd have to lie, which would then make things much worse if they caught your lie.

Sounds like it is going to cost you whatever way you play this one

 

[Haze]

Troll....

What advice can a computer forum give you that a solicitor can not....

 

[Rroff]

Troll....

What advice can a computer forum give you that a solicitor can not....

Probably not a troll post - for some reason it isn't entirely unusual for people to think they can get away with the most basic insurance category while using it for other types of use, often because they think it will be the cheapest (not always the case).

EDIT: Annoyingly a common one with this is where someone's parents have done it for them - it just irritates me in all kinds of ways - I just can't imagine taking a chance like that for your kids or on the other hand the various angles on responsibility on the part of the person whose parents have done it for them either their upbringing not imparting the importance of taking responsibility for it or through laziness in their mind divesting responsibility for getting it right, etc.

Without knowing their insurer's terms and conditions and related particulars it is impossible to say really, if it was a one off trip that "happened" to coincide with work they'd nominally be able to get away with it even if they'd previously said they were driving to work, but most insurers include "regular same route" on the day of working as a catch all for this kind of situation - the normal example being driving to a train station - so OP would have to lie if they did this regularly, which would then make matters a whole lot worse if they got caught out.

EDIT2: As is often the case with these posts they've posted over multiple different forums - probably because they know they won't get the answer they are looking for but still think it will magically appear.

 

[Rroff]

I have received a separate letter from one of the claimants about Car damages as well as my insurance refused to pay because of article 75, I was using the car for commuting purposes.

If I'm reading this correctly my understanding, could well be wrong, is that your insurer would still pay up under article 75, or at least an insurer would as there can be an agreement made between insurers, but would then claim back all monies from you, any other parties shouldn't be contacting directly except in the case another insurer has paid up over your own insurer. Aside from in relation to any civil case another party might initiate against you only one entity should be chasing you for money.

 

[Haze]

OP is not insured to drive to work, op used the car to drive to work, op is not insured to drive to work...

There is nothing we can tell op, that their solicitor can tell them...

Cough the money, and learn how car insurance works

 

[happy_2008]

Car was used for commuting so just pay up.

 

[Semple]

I tried to argue with them that was not clear to me that I thought I was covered for everything.

Do you regularly purchase things like insurance without actually knowing what it is that you've purchased? It's not like you even had to read through the 50 pages of terms and conditions, what you're covered for is listed on the first page which suggests you bought a policy that you couldn't even be bothered to read.

I don't honestly see the technicality mattering here, you've already admitted to breaching the policy by commuting on it, which will likely null your policy. So it's unlikely to matter that you're now claiming that at that specific point in time you were on a social/pleasure activity.

 

[robj20]

Going to hurt next time when you have to disclose you had a policy refused in the past.

 

[Diagro]

Lol, expensive mistake overlooking that commute bit.
However, I bet tons have committed that same oversight.
You'll get absolutely shafted by the incoming costs. Inc any injury claim. Wow. You're going to have to sell your house

 

[Glanza]

You didn't have the correct cover, now your liable. Simple.

 

[Kenai]

I have a little sympathy, having had brokers in the past send me documents that said SD&P then try to tell me verbally that commuting was covered and it didn't matter that the paperwork didn't say it

 

[Rroff]

However, I bet tons have committed that same oversight.

Personally I think base level car insurance should include commuting - there are quite a few who just assume basic car insurance will cover it. Also IMO commuting should cover any kind of basic business use adjacent to commuting, as long as it isn't the main purpose of your job. Many people don't realise their insurance may actually not cover them if they do things like:

-Pop out to buy stuff on the work budget like say milk for staff use, stationary, etc.
-Going to a different site to your "permanent" place of business i.e. attending a training course.
-Giving colleagues a lift (some technically only cover it if occasional or on your normal route, etc. some don't cover it at all).
-Occasionally driving between a different site during the course of a working day.
-Dropping something off to a customer on their way home.

And so on - fortunately some like Admiral now cover stuff like attending a different site to your normal place of business as long as you are only going to one place of business per day.

But I suspect OP like all too many people thought they'd just get the basic level, assuming it was the cheapest, with the attitude of "it'll never happen to me" and/or thinking they can blag it if anything happens.

 

[pepp77]

Adding commuting to the policy probably wouldn't have cost more than about a tenner as well. I occassionally have to use my personal car to travel to customer sites or other offices and just added on business use - think it added about £20 last year to my policy cost

 

[Rroff]

Adding commuting to the policy probably wouldn't have cost more than about a tenner as well. I occassionally have to use my personal car to travel to customer sites or other offices and just added on business use - think it added about £20 last year to my policy cost

Thing I hate with business it can be so inconsistent cost wise, sometimes it is no extra cost or just a nominal amount, sometimes you can have it added on for basically just the admin fee, other times they want hundreds to add it on.

 

[mattyg]

I had something similar when I first passed my test... Get the MIB involved. Thats what its there for

 

[tom_e]

I had something similar when I first passed my test... Get the MIB involved. Thats what its there for

They'd be there for the person the OP hit, not the OP no?

 

[mattyg]

They'd be there for the person the OP hit, not the OP no?

Yep.. But didn't the op say hes had a letter from the 3rd party

 

[mattyg]

This is the grey area with insurance..
If the OP wasn't insured then how come the insurers haven't reported him to the police for driving whilst not insured? You'd think they'd have a duty to report such things.