Helping To Avoid Insurance Claims Being Repudiated
Some time ago it was feasible to for an insurance company to pay a motor claim that would have otherwise been declined, simply because the claimant had been a long term and loyal client to the company. Even today it is not inconceivable that an insurance company will make a decision to pay a claim on commercial grounds, for example where the claimant is a very major and highly profitable client. However the days of paying out a claim in order to treat a long-term client decently, are long gone and many clients risk having claims declined.
Although it is not widely known, most contract hire companies have a form of fall back insurance for their contract hire vehicles; this can covers them if the hirer has an accident and their insurer refuses to pay out. Of course the contract hire company will then hold the hirer liable for any loss, but on occasions the hirer is a limited company that subsequently goes into liquidation. If there are no personal guarantees in place then the contract hire company has no means of recovering its money other than to claim on their own insurance. Nowadays contract hire companies are seeing an increasing number of cases where claims are being repudiated. The more serious the accident, the more closely the insurance company will investigate a claim. After all they have to look after their shareholders interests, paying claims where the insurer or driver have not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance, is not looking after the shareholders interests.
Most insurance company’s terms and conditions state that the vehicle must comply with the manufacturer’s specifications, so the vehicle must not be modified in any way without informing the insurance company. That is why it is advisable to always fit the manufacturers recommended tyres. Employees should be told that under no circumstance should there be any modification made to the engine of their company car. It is not unheard of for employees to have the engine of their company vehicle “chipped” this is a process that changes the way the engine control unit manages the engine and increases the brake horsepower of the vehicle. This would give an insurance company a very good reason to refuse to pay out on a claim, if the vehicle is involved in an accident. In any event it will invalidate the vehicle’s warranty.
It is important to remember that an insurer requires the insured to keep a vehicle in a roadworthy condition. A high proportion of company cars are on contract hire; they are serviced regularly and are generally under warranty. Any faults or potential faults are normally rectified, by the dealership under the manufacturer’s warranty, when the vehicle is in for its service. Some companies purchase and keep their company cars for up to 4 or 5 years. Ensuring that the vehicle is always in a roadworthy condition is much more difficult under these circumstances, particularly if the mileage is high.
Of course it is not only the lack of maintenance that can cause a vehicle un roadworthy; depending on the circumstances of an accident, having the wrong tyre pressure, where the tyres are unevenly, over or under inflated could cause the insurance company to deem the vehicle to be in an un roadworthy condition. Incorrect tyre pressure can affect road holding, steering, braking and the overall handling of a vehicle and in an accident can often be a contributory factor, particularly in wet conditions. If a vehicle is involved in an accident, it is not unusual for the insurance company to check that the car is roadworthy; it is in their interests to do so. Of course if the circumstances of the accident were such that it is clear that the accident has been caused by another vehicle, this would not be a factor.
If the circumstances of the accident were different, if say your employee’s vehicle skidded and crashed into another vehicle or failed to negotiate a bend and crashed, then it is quite possible that the insurer will carry out various checks on the vehicle, to ensure that it was roadworthy. Driving with the incorrect tyre pressure can be very dangerous; it can affect braking, steering, road holding and the general stability of the car. Employee’s need to be advised that they must check their tyre pressure on a regular basis, tyres are best checked when they are cold. The incorrect tyre pressure apart from the increased risk of having an accident will also significantly increase your overall fuel bill.
Tyres do need to be checked for wear; probably the most practical option is to make the employee responsible. It is after all his car and his life that is at risk if he drives the vehicle in an un- roadworthy condition. The period between servicing intervals nowadays can be very long indeed. Previously, when a typical servicing interval was 12,000 miles, companies used to rely on the dealership’s servicing department telling them if a tyre needed changing. That is no longer a practical option; indeed some would question whether it is ever a practical option, to rely on a servicing department, because they do appear to have a habit of changing tyres before they need to be changed.
Another risk to the company is employees driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, an insurance company will not generally pay out if there is an accident under these circumstances. How many of your employees stop of for a “couple” of pints on the way home? In a study carried out in 1998, alcohol was a factor in 10% of fatal motorcycle accidents and 19% of cars and other vehicles involved in fatal crashes. In spite of greater awareness nowadays there are still drivers who seriously believe that they drive better after consuming alcohol. The evidence however shows that alcohol seriously impairs psychomotor skills and affects the brains ability to process information.
The same will apply if the employee is under the influence of drugs. The company should also take into account that an employee may be taking a prescription drug that could affect their ability to drive safely. It would perhaps not be unreasonable for a company to check with an employee if they feel this could be the case. With the new legislation that comes into force in April 2008, the company is responsible for ensuring that its employees are safe when driving on company business.
Employees should also be told that they must not, however cold the weather is, go out and start the car and leave the engine running to warm the car up. However comfortable this may make the drive into work, it is highly risky; if someone got into the car and drove off, as has happened many times, the insurance company will not pay out for a vehicle stolen under these circumstances. The same applies if an employee leaves the keys in the car at a petrol station whilst they go to the cash desk.
If the company vehicles are to be insured whilst on the road, the driver must have a valid driving licence. There are many employers that believe that taking a photocopy of an employee’s driving licence is all that is necessary. Some have never seen the original and accept a photocopy provided by the employee, only to discover following an accident, that the employee had been previously disqualified.
If a contract hire broker is being used to source the company vehicles, most established contract hire brokers offer a licence checking service, if not there are other companies that specialise in providing a licence checking service. Regularly checking an employee’s driving licence is the only way a company can be sure that this type situation does not arise. An employee could be disqualified, or have accrued other convictions after the company has taken a copy of the licence. It is important to have these checks carried out not only to ensure the company’s insurance is not invalidated but also to protect the company in view of the new legislation.
If an insurer refuses to pay out on a claim, one should not be necessarily assume that they are correct in doing so. There is the Financial Ombudsman that will deal with any complaints or disputes in this respect. In a case we are aware of, one of our clients had his vehicle carjacked, the insurance company refused to pay out the claim of 60,000, because they said that they had written to him on a number of occasions telling him that he must fit Tracker to the vehicle, which he had not done. They argued that had tracker been fitted, the vehicle might have been recovered. However when an expert was called in on behalf of the client, things changed. Our understanding is that the expert stated that whilst the insurer had indeed written to the client with regard to Tracker, they had not at any time told him he would be uninsured without it. The claim was settled.
The following may help to prevent a claim from being declined by an insurer; company cars should be maintained regularly and tyre pressures need to be measured frequently to ensure pressures are correct and wear is even. It should be made clear to employees that they must not modify their car in any way and that they should not ignore any warning lights that show up. It can help to reduce drink driving amongst employees if they understand that they are likely to loose their job as well as their driving licence, if caught. They should also be advised of the risks of driving if taking any form of drugs, including some prescription drugs. Make employees aware that if they leave the car with the engine running there is a very real risk of it being stolen. Also using a contract hire and leasing broker to check employees driving licences, will avoid the risk of employees driving with undeclared convictions, or whilst disqualified.
Negligence on the part of the driver can often be the cause of an insurer declining a claim. The was a case reported in America where a gentleman having purchased a motor home, set off on a trip and once on the open road, engaged cruise control and left the controls to make a drink. His understanding of cruise control was that the vehicle drove on its own. Of course the insurance company declined to pay for the subsequent damage, after the vehicle crashed, however he was able to successfully sue the motor home manufacturer, claiming that they should have told him that cruise control doesn’t drive the vehicle for you.