Message Forums

I think modern insurance sucks they are always looking for a way to get out of paying up not just with caravans but with everything you insure.Ian

No they don't IMO. The problem generally rests with the insured rather than the insurer. What we think we have insured and what we actually have insured are often two different things. Like the O.P who is under-insured but hopes that the insurers will pay out an extra few thousand. (Worth asking OP - someone at the insurers may make a mistake!) When they don't pay what we hope for, it is usually the case that we come back and say "I think insurance sucks." How many of you out there actually read the policy and, even if you do read it, how many understand how it actually operates?  Truth is that we tend to only find that out when we have a claim. Insurers pay out in accordance with the terms of the policy.  It's up to us to negotiate the terms we want rather than to leave it to chance.

To get new for old there are, generally, two qualifications that we agree to when we take the policy out.

1. That the cost of repair is not economic compared to the cost of new

2. That we have insured for the price of a similar new  van.

In the OP case (if his policy follows this format) then if the repair is less than £11500 he will get the repairs done as that is economic to the insurers; or at least paid out the repair sum and he can then either get the van repaired or put the money towards a new van. If you have new for old it is better to have the van stolen rather than be involved in an acident.

So, before the OP starts top think about a new van just have a look at your policy and check on the exact wording of your policy.

Phil

I am basically with Phil on this one.  It's all down to the wording of the policy and making sure you understand what you are insured for etc.  We've had out caravan insured with the CC for years and every year I always have a phone conversation with them trying to clarify things as there are always grey areas, often down to interpretation.

For example the CC caravan insurance is in two parts, Van and associated equipment is one section and contents is the other section.  They try and make it as clear as possible what is meant by associated equipment and what is contents, but there are items that can be classed as both.  I must have been on the 'phone an hour at last renewal making sure I got the right items in the right category.

I also think some insurance companies take a harder line than others, irrespective of words on a page.  When our last van was stolen, the CC accepted all my figures without question.  The other person who had his van stolen at the same time (who was insured by a different company) had a three hour interview with the assessor who questioned the value of each item etc,  Now some of this could quite easily be down to the way forms were filled in and the degree of detail of information given by those of us who claimed, but from what I gather some insurance companies will delve and argue the case whereas others are more sympathetic.  The CC made it easy for us, but after saying that, I made it easy for them by producing a claim in minute detail. 

Another example is the question of receipts to prove value etc.  When we had our theft, I had the receipt/paper work for the van itself, but many other items I couldn't supply receipts for e.g. every knife, fork, bottle of vinegar and bar of soap.  The CC were quite within there rights to say 'no receipt, no payout' (according to the policy), but they didn't.  They were happy to accept my word for the associated aquipment and contents which were not receipted.

Quote: Originally posted by Crazyplace on 21/10/2011Hi after accident i sadly think the van will be too expensive to repair. it is 2009 so comes under new for old. I read that you had to insure price of new one and at time i found a couple similar for 11500 so used that figure. now they seem to be 14000 since june!!! can i try to argue for the 14,000 or at least more than 11500?

In cases like this it is important to separate out the two potential causes of action and to keep them quite separate in your discussions. Do not blur the distinction between insurance and the supply of a service (as some politician may have once said!)

The contract of insurance was made with the insurance company and its terms and conditions are set out in your insurance policy. There has been no misleading as to those terms by the insurance company (according to the information you have posted. ) Under that contract your insurers will either pay out to repair your van or provide a sum of money equal to your insured amount of £11500 for a new van (unless you get lucky or your policy says something different to what you think it says).

You employed a Broker to provide you with advice etc and to secure insurance cover to the extent indicated in the instructions that you gave to that Broker. That Broker was providing you with insurance advice, and held himself out as an expert in this field. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 regulates the manner in which that Broker has to supply that service. The Act indicates that he has to use reasonable skill and care. This "separate" issue may provide a cause of action against the Broker.

So, if you think that the Broker mislead you then your approach is to claim against him for a breach of the 1982 duty of care. Thus, in the best case scenario your insurers pay out £11500 for a new van and your broker pays you the extra to make your money up to £14,000. Don't use the brokers failure (if there is one) to argue with your insurers that they should pay out more. It doesn't work like that unless the broker was an agent for the insurance company. "Brokers" tend to be independent (legally).

So, you have to ask your self (a) did the Broker mislead you?(b) did the Broker give you wrong advice that has directly led to your loss (c) Did you fail in any respect (don't overlook this angle!)

From what you have said the broker advised you not to over insure. I have to say that that is sound advice. Advising you not to over insure is not the same as saying that he told you not to insure for 2012 prices because the insurers would pay out on 2012 prices regardless of what figure you put in the policy. Don't blur these distinctions otherwise you just end up running round in circles getting no where with your argument. Purely going on what you have posted (and there may be other relevant facts you have not touched upon), and setting out the sequence of events, your broker told you to get a price for a new van and don't over insure. You then went off and found the price of a new van. The Broker did not find the price. The sum of £11500 was your decision. On these facts your broker has not acted without due care and attention.It may be said that you ignored the potential for an increase in price over the period of insurance.

Now, if your Broker told you to put into your policy just the current price for a van, any one using reasonable skill and care would know that van prices increase during the life of an annual insurance policy and that the current price would not be the right advice. I hope you can see the distinction between this scenario and that in the last paragraph. In this scenario, you have a potential case against the Broker

Whatever argument you run, the failure of the Broker must have led directly to the loss. So, Telling you not to over insure did not lead to the loss as, the level of cover was decided by you. If the Broker decided that £11500 was the right figure then his decision led to the loss.

No point in having an argument with someone if it cannot go anywhere. Many an argument arises because folk get too emotionally involved and fail to see the wood for the trees.  Run the wrong argument and you get the wrong answer even if you have an excellent case for the Broker to answer. The skill is in identifying that excellent case BEFORE you raise a dispute.

If your insurers will only pay to repair the van, as that is what your policy provides, then there is no point in running any argument with your broker about the level of cover you have as it will not matter. You have not suffered a loss. You may think it is a loss (not getting a new van) but, in this scenario, you are not entitled to one. Again, hope you see the subtlety of the distinction here. So, before firing anything off with the Broker I would suggest that you wait until you find out just what your insurers are to do.

As regards the complaint that he told you that you were insured as the van was not stationary I would ignore that issue as it just muddies the waters and deflects you away from the real point at issue. After all your insurers say that you are covered so why have an argument?

Hope this helps

Phil.

Thank you cwd it is indeed a minefield and i possibly think I wont have much of an arguement. The van it seems has damage to 3 sides and the front and a crash barrier mark in the roof!! It seems it is doomed so we wil wait and see. I will however make a complaint to the broker on the front of their staff upsetting me more in a stressful situation. Not to gain money but simply as a customer service aspect.

Lesson to us all- read the policy wording carefully x

Really hope you get all that you hope for. Its always a worry at these times. let us know how you get on.....

Phil

Check your insurance policy...is it really with Discover or has it been underwriiten by a Bona Fide insurance company?

Phil