Jump to content

2 Car Insurance Questions!

Recommended Posts

1. Is there any evidence that the govt's vow to stop people claiming they have 'whiplash' after very low-speed bumps/knocks in cars (almost stationary, in my friend's case) - and demanding compensation for it - has been put into practice yet? Or are grasping opportunistic people still getting away with it?

 

2. If your oil sump is punctured on a rock and all the oil leaks out and your car engine consequently siezes up, can you claim for the repairs on your car insurance? I was unaware of the damage when it happened, but stopped driving the car as soon as the oil warning light came on.

 

Thanks for any words of wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard of insures paying out for cars with seized engines but never seen it on any policy I've held .by the time the oil light comes on most of the damage is done .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No idea I'm afraid.

 

2. If it's fully comprehensive insurance then yes it should pay out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was talk about point one but it probably takes a couple of years or so get stuff through parliament and all the complicit legal wrangles etc.

 

On point two, you'd have to check with your insurer and I suspect you'd have to have absolute evidence that that was the case and not your own fault to even stand a chance. Insurers are in business to generate income for themselves; they'll always look to avoid paying out at any cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it is your own fault they will pay out - that's what comprehensive insurance is for after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd point..if you were off roading then the situation may be different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. No idea I'm afraid.

 

2. If it's fully comprehensive insurance then yes it should pay out.

 

Really? It's not damage caused by or related to an accident, it's a mechanical failure caused by a lack of oil, and how the oil sump was damaged is probably irrelevant unless it was in an 'accident'.

 

---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 10:13 ----------

 

Even if it is your own fault they will pay out - that's what comprehensive insurance is for after all!

 

Definitely not that simple, they certainly wouldn't pay out for damage caused by a lack of maintenance or neglect.

 

You're confusing insurance with warranty if you think it covers mechanical failure.

 

---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 10:15 ----------

 

For example

 

http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?12949-A3-sump-damage-and-engine-seizure

 

Unfortunately a large stone hit and pierced the oil sump whilst driving. We stopped the car within a minute of the incident once the oil warning light came on. The car was then recovered on a trailor and taken to a garage. At the garage it was discovered that the engine had seized completely. The insurance company are refusing to pay for a replacement engine as they are claiming that the sump damage and duration of time the engine was driven for after the incident would not cause the engine to seize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Is there any evidence that the govt's vow to stop people claiming they have 'whiplash' after very low-speed bumps/knocks in cars (almost stationary, in my friend's case) - and demanding compensation for it - has been put into practice yet? Or are grasping opportunistic people still getting away with it?

 

2. If your oil sump is punctured on a rock and all the oil leaks out and your car engine consequently siezes up, can you claim for the repairs on your car insurance? I was unaware of the damage when it happened, but stopped driving the car as soon as the oil warning light came on.

 

Thanks for any words of wisdom.

 

Not much to say on point 2, but on point 1, I've plenty to add.

 

The clampdown on claims, whether genuine or not, continues. There are a number of points to mention.

 

Firstly, you mention low speed collisions (LVIs - low velocity impacts). These have been dealt with for some years now - at least 8 years, and the medico legal industry is live to the problem.

 

Where LVI is alleged, insurers are very, very keen to deal with these. Claims are taken out of the MOJ portal system, and dealt with fully, whereby Defendants will get their own experts to argue this point, if they feel it relevant. Claims for accidents under a certain speed will ALWAYS result in this happening.

 

Can it be stopped? No. In the same way that people claiming on their household insurance for items that weren't stolen in a burglary can't be stopped. That one is never mentioned as much in the Daily Mail though, despite it being far more common. It still puts up premiums though, and is still fraud. Mind you, people lying on insurance proposals isn't mentioned either. LVI claims are certainly decreasing, and I can assure you, lawyers don't mind this. I wouldn't personally take on a claim if someone told me they'd been injured at 4mph. I'd tell them to get a grip.

 

In terms of claims generally, there is a huge push to stop people being able to claim altogether. Costs are limited to the point of being ridiculous (£500, regardless of how long the claim takes), doctors fees are now very limited, and even where someone is entirely blame free, they're generally expected to lose 25% of the damages they're entitled to. That's another argument though.

 

The only good point to come from the government's anti-Claimant stance is that claims management companies seem to be largely dying out, since the referral fee ban. That's a good thing. Solicitors don't stand on street corners trying to get claims (that would be illegal). Solicitors don't cold call/text (again illegal). These are claims management company tactics, and I, along with many of my colleagues, won't miss them one bit as they give us a bad name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? It's not damage caused by or related to an accident, it's a mechanical failure caused by a lack of oil, and how the oil sump was damaged is probably irrelevant unless it was in an 'accident'.

 

---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 10:13 ----------

 

 

Definitely not that simple, they certainly wouldn't pay out for damage caused by a lack of maintenance or neglect.

 

You're confusing insurance with warranty if you think it covers mechanical failure.

 

---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 10:15 ----------

 

For example

 

http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?12949-A3-sump-damage-and-engine-seizure

 

I'm certainly not confusing the two. If you have a comprehensive policy they will pay for any accidental damage that it suffers in the course of normal use, that will certainly cover sump damage unless perhaps as someone says you were offroading.

 

The subsequent engine damage is going to be covered if you can show there was a direct link from the accidental damage to the damage from starvation and that was unavoidable. About six years ago I drove over a scaffold pole on the M20 which smashed the sump and gearbox case, and in the time it took me to get from lane 3 to the hard shoulder the engine suffered a lot of damage. My insurers wanted a report - BMW provided one that the damage was consistent with the forty odd seconds I was driving it with no oil (I lost oil at a fairly high engine speed so damage was inevitable really). Insurers paid up without a quibble after that. Yes they are always going to try and wriggle out but if you can prove it then they seem to settle quite happily.

 

As a counter example - car drove through a puddle and wrecked either through hitting something, or just hydrolocking the engine. Direct line paid out

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=394695

Edited by Obelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update on the sump damage issue. It was caused by an accident (I had to veer onto the left hand verge of a country lane to avoid collision with a vehicle whose driver had taken a corner far too fast and ended up in the middle of the road. Rock on verge had smashed the sump, but not so loudly you'd be alarmed by it - just a dull thud, really - and the car drove fine for a while afterwards).

 

Anyway, my insurers didn't quibble and have written off the vehicle as a total loss, as a new sump would be £500 and as the engine has seized up, a new engine plus fitting would take the cost of repair into thousands.

 

On the whiplash issue, the woman is claiming £7000 for pain, loss of earnings (she was unemployed before the bump!) and heaven knows what else. My friend's insurers are keen to challenge this in court and she is hoping that as she is an NHS ward sister (thus frontline medical staff), she will be able to submit a statement to the court rather than have to take time off to attend in person - her ward is understaffed as it is. I hope she wins.

 

My GP tells me that his practice has been asked not to endorse whiplash claims unless there is clear medical evidence of injury, but presumably there are still private doctors willing to sign these things on the claimant's say-so and make a few quid for themselves?

 

Moosey, thanks for the information - interesting and it gives some hope, I think.

Edited by aliceBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, glad to be corrected.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2014 at 00:19 ----------

 

The problem with whiplash (from a GP point of view) is that the only "clear medical evidence" generally, is pain. Which can only be reported subjectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, glad to be corrected.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2014 at 00:19 ----------

 

The problem with whiplash (from a GP point of view) is that the only "clear medical evidence" generally, is pain. Which can only be reported subjectively.

 

Yes, I know what you mean. Which is why in Germany and some other countries you cannot claim whiplash compensation if the collision occurred at low speed - they realised that people were having a laugh with it. It's a bit like people whose homes have been burgled saying 'I would like compensating for my feelings of having been violated'. Unquantifiable - I cannot see how an insurance system can operate on that basis.

 

And surely, if each car occupant's headrest is correctly adjusted for their height, it should eliminate the problem (in low speed knocks) in any case? It may also save them from serious injury at high speed. Perhaps that should be made mandatory, like seat belts.

Edited by aliceBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.