Luton airport...

[Fubsy]

If my car was caught up in that, I'd just be calling them up and saying "my car is destroyed due to fire, I believe my policy covers fire, please start a claim".

Yes, I'd probably have to pay an excess and maybe premiums higher next time around, however this is just part of owning a car. Whether it's on the drive, and car park or moving around, there's always a risk it can be damaged or nicked.

 

[Gundam God]

Surely the customer just reports that their car caught fire and got written off, they get paid out and that's that. It doesn't matter if the total loss was 100s or millions, the customer should have valid insurance and will be paid out market value for the written off car?
Also, in trying to get future insurance, can insurance companies legally penalise someone due to the cost of previous claims? This is totally out of their control obviously. Nobody means for their car to catch fire.
Somehow I expect the owner might get shafted though. Good old car insurance companies are always there for you aren't they.

In terms of costs overall though, would it not all be the insurance company of the original car that caught fire that should cover all costs to all cars and the building? You play the car insurance game and when things like this happen, you have to get your big boy pants on and pay out right?

The owner of the car that caught fire will claim for their destroyed car through his/her insurance. All other car owners will need to do the same with THEIR insurer, the original car owner is not liable for what happened to all the other cars as it was an accidental fire, unless it was intentional i.e. arson. Then it gets tricky. The structure owners will need to claim from their insurer and the airlines will need to claim from theirs.
Things like this happening don't boil down to finding who's responsible and piling all the costs on them.

 

[bigmike20vt]

indeed... its like if someone rear ends you and then shunts you into someone else. Despite it was the persons fault at the rear, their insurance only covers the car they hit...... your insurance has to cover the car you were punted into even tho it is not your fault.
(not an exact comparison but similar logic i guess)

 

[jaybee]

OK so are we saying if someone drives their car into my house and my house falls down, the person's car insurance company is not liable even if it was their fault? How do you deem someone to be at fault?
Proven speeding at the time = fault? Does that mean insurers can void the claim and make someone pay for a house? At that point I would have to claim on my insurance and take them to court? How does it all work!?

 

[tom_e]

indeed... its like if someone rear ends you and then shunts you into someone else. Despite it was the persons fault at the rear, their insurance only covers the car they hit...... your insurance has to cover the car you were punted into even tho it is not your fault.
(not an exact comparison but similar logic i guess)

I always thought the rear cars insurance would be liable but the other cars insurers would pay out and then claim back from the car which caused all the subsequent damage.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I am certain it's not beyond the wit of man to build an open platform off each floor with undamaged vehicles on and pay someone to accept the risk of being given the keys to drive each vehicle to the offloading platform where a high lift fork lift truck brings them to a temporary road surface at ground level. But good old `elf `n' safety probably forbids allowing anyone to take such a calculated risk for money. (I would certainly consider the job for a good wedge....).

Probably a good job for prisoners to consider in return for early parole actually. There'll be some right old fiddles going on here, for sure, IMO.

 

[K.C. Leblanc]

Maybe another that covers them 100% between £10M and £15M loss on motor. They pay someone else in effect to accept part of the risk. Lloyds names are famous for this type of business, most of the time its money for nothing.

It's going to be fin for the owner of the Range Rover when they shop for car insurance.

Have you had any claims in the last year?

Only one.

How much for?

Oh £30 million pounds.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I always thought the rear cars insurance would be liable but the other cars insurers would pay out and then claim back from the car which caused all the subsequent damage.

This is exactly how it works. There is a term for it but it escapes me.

Say you have 4 cars 1 at the front, 4 the naughty boy at the back.
1 claims against 2, 2 picks this up and adds their drivers cost to 3, 3 picks these up and adds their cost and passes to 4. 4 picks up the costs for 1-3 and 4. They may also pickup a load of other claims for PI (personal injury), reinstatement of roadway etc.

Obviously you could have the same insurer in there more than once. But the principle is that.

Edit to say I was assuming static cars here. Such as the first three waiting at a traffic light.
If all the cars are moving then is different. Its still your responsibility to maintain a safe distance to the car in front, which should mean if you are hit from behind you cannot hit the car in front.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I had a customer who was a well known classic car dealer who took his Miura to the garage I later started out from, and a mechanic there wrote it off spectacularly showing the lads just how fast he could wind it up to on the 40MPH limit road past the place. Turned out he'd been economic with the facts when applying for his motor trade insurance, and the company he was with (known themselves to be a bit, err, suspect) told him to sod off. A month later the owner's absolutely stunning thatched house in Knutsford burnt to the ground, both with the same underwriters.

I thought that was bad enough, but in terms of loss compared to something like maritime insurance the car park and the Lambo' / house incidents will be chicken feed. Most well run insurance companies always come out smelling of roses in the end I won't be losing any sleep for them.

 

[Chris Wilson]

This is exactly how it works. There is a term for it but it escapes me.

Say you have 4 cars 1 at the front, 4 the naughty boy at the back.
1 claims against 2, 2 picks this up and adds their drivers cost to 3, 3 picks these up and adds their cost and passes to 4. 4 picks up the costs for 1-3 and 4. They may also pickup a load of other claims for PI (personal injury), reinstatement of roadway etc.

Obviously you could have the same insurer in there more than once. But the principle is that.

Isn't it called "knock for knock"?

 

[clearbyte]

What’s is worrying is the quality of the construction in my opinion.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Isn't it called "knock for knock"?

"Knock for knock" is where blame cannot really be reliably apportioned.
Say clipped wings on a busy narrow road with both cars moving.

 

[Chris Wilson]

"Knock for knock" is where blame cannot really be reliably apportioned.
Say clipped wings on a busy narrow road with both cars moving.

Ah, right, my bad, thanks.

 

[bigmike20vt]

This is exactly how it works. There is a term for it but it escapes me.

Say you have 4 cars 1 at the front, 4 the naughty boy at the back.
1 claims against 2, 2 picks this up and adds their drivers cost to 3, 3 picks these up and adds their cost and passes to 4. 4 picks up the costs for 1-3 and 4. They may also pickup a load of other claims for PI (personal injury), reinstatement of roadway etc.

Obviously you could have the same insurer in there more than once. But the principle is that.

Edit to say I was assuming static cars here. Such as the first three waiting at a traffic light.
If all the cars are moving then is different. Its still your responsibility to maintain a safe distance to the car in front, which should mean if you are hit from behind you cannot hit the car in front.

well there you go, i was wrong... you learn something new every day.

so that means that even if my no claims was not protected i would not lose anything as it would be a no fault claim then for cars 1-3?

the moving one is pretty harsh tho.

that i could be doing 70 and someone wallop me in the back doing lets 100, i am still expected to remain in control of my car enough to bring to a safe halt without hitting anyone.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

well there you go, i was wrong... you learn something new every day.

so that means that even if my no claims was not protected i would not lose anything as it would be a no fault claim then for cars 1-3?

Yep.

It gets more tricky if everyone is still moving however (like say crawling along), but if you are stationary then it should be passed back to the person who triggered it.

 

[Chris Wilson]

well there you go, i was wrong... you learn something new every day.

so that means that even if my no claims was not protected i would not lose anything as it would be a no fault claim then for cars 1-3?

the moving one is pretty harsh tho.

that i could be doing 70 and someone wallop me in the back doing lets 100, i am still expected to remain in control of my car enough to bring to a safe halt without hitting anyone.

Difficult given the mass of an electric vehicle....




(I'll get my coat, sorry Mike )

 

[bigmike20vt]

Difficult given the mass of an electric vehicle....




(I'll get my coat, sorry Mike )

lol its ok, with its regenerative braking it would stop itsself anyway........... (assuming it didnt spontaneously combust instantly disintegrating all vehicles within a 150m radius ofcourse................... according to the Sun, maybe )

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

well there you go, i was wrong... you learn something new every day.

so that means that even if my no claims was not protected i would not lose anything as it would be a no fault claim then for cars 1-3?

the moving one is pretty harsh tho.

that i could be doing 70 and someone wallop me in the back doing lets 100, i am still expected to remain in control of my car enough to bring to a safe halt without hitting anyone.

Then you get into the grey area of what can be proven and what not. If your doing 70 and you get hit by someone travelling at 100 your probably still not going to connect with the car in front if you have left enough gap in the first place. Its not like your suddenly going to jump from 70 to 100 and close the gap you should have at 70.

Its possibly more of an issue as I said in slow moving traffic where people often leave far too little gap.

 

[jaybee]

lol its ok, with its regenerative braking it would stop itsself anyway........... (assuming it didnt spontaneously combust instantly disintegrating all vehicles within a 150m radius ofcourse................... according to the Sun, maybe )

They used an EV explosion actually for the nuclear apocalypse scene in Terminator 2. True story.

 

[bigmike20vt]

They used an EV explosion actually for the nuclear apocalypse scene in Terminator 2. True story.

cool.... they must not have had many evs back in................ what 1990? (an old milk float maybe?)