In Caravaggio's Painting, "The...
Arts & Literature1 min ago
Car stolen = are we insured
Do we have a claim against our insurers? Our case was stolen by a person posing as a buyer. My husband was standing by the car at the time, showing it to the buyer. The buyer asked my husband to check the reversing car sensors, and as he walked behind the vehicle, the 'buyer' slammed the door and drove off. Police informed, car not traced, case closed. Our insurers are claiming we cannot claim ANYTHING - it was a £20k car. I have a summary of cover, which states no mention of this clause which is actually buried deep in the policy. Surely they owe a duty of care to make policy holders aware of such a thing? Any help / courses of action welcome. We ahve reported the case to The Financial Ombudsman.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pollyl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes it was fraud- but does that mean any theft y someone posing a s abuyer would constitute fraud/trickery?--eg if you let him in your house to look at the papers and while you were lokking he picked up the keys and took the car?
Or he got in the car and hotwired it (is that the term I mean)?
I'd be interested to see an example of a theft by a prospective buyer that wouldn't be regarded as fraud/trickery. If the answer is 'none' then under the policy you are unwise to try to sell your car privately
Or he got in the car and hotwired it (is that the term I mean)?
I'd be interested to see an example of a theft by a prospective buyer that wouldn't be regarded as fraud/trickery. If the answer is 'none' then under the policy you are unwise to try to sell your car privately
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I did wonder whether there was any chink of light by us arguing there was no proof he was not a genuine buyer up until the second he took it... (though the facts blatantly suggest otherwise) or if we could argue that the insurance company owes some kind of duty of care to highlight such an important clause in its summary. We've been a customer of Direct Line / Privilege for years (name and shame!), and that money is pretty much our life savings gone. Yes, totally our fault, but it's a bitter pill!
OK – so we’ve agreed to continue to argue this one.
As factor30 is intimating, should someone some how manage to steal your car while you are selling it – this clause would void the theft insurance cover.
But the purpose of this clause is to negate the liability to the insurer, where you have allowed someone to take the car in good faith – having exchanged it for something that turns out to be worthless (e.g. fake bankers-draft, counterfeit notes etc).
The mode of theft in this instance is really no different from a con-artist managing to get you out of the car and driving off. The fact that this happened when the car was being sold does not allow the insurance company to invoke the clause relating to fraud/trickery IMO.
As factor30 is intimating, should someone some how manage to steal your car while you are selling it – this clause would void the theft insurance cover.
But the purpose of this clause is to negate the liability to the insurer, where you have allowed someone to take the car in good faith – having exchanged it for something that turns out to be worthless (e.g. fake bankers-draft, counterfeit notes etc).
The mode of theft in this instance is really no different from a con-artist managing to get you out of the car and driving off. The fact that this happened when the car was being sold does not allow the insurance company to invoke the clause relating to fraud/trickery IMO.
Having read that the insurer concerned is Directline, and having a policy with them – I took a look my insurance policy booklet. And sure enough there is an exclusion for theft; that if the loss is as a result of deception or fraud.
But in the commentary (in the adjacent margin) it states ‘Loss by deception or fraud is not covered, e.g. if you attempt to sell your car and allow the purchaser or purchaser’s agent to take possession before the payment method clears you will not be covered if the payment fails’
The forward to the commentary states that it is to help you understand your policy.
Given the above – I would write to the Ombudsman, pointing this out in relation to your claim.
But in the commentary (in the adjacent margin) it states ‘Loss by deception or fraud is not covered, e.g. if you attempt to sell your car and allow the purchaser or purchaser’s agent to take possession before the payment method clears you will not be covered if the payment fails’
The forward to the commentary states that it is to help you understand your policy.
Given the above – I would write to the Ombudsman, pointing this out in relation to your claim.
Hymie is spot-on.
Whoever has kicked this claim out does not understand how their own policy wording works.
The following is the verbatim text from the Chartered Insurance Institute Motor Insurance exam course book;
"The clause states "you are not insured for loss of your car be deception by someone who claims to be a buyer or a buying or selling agent.
Some insurers would not place too strict an interpretation on the above exclusion. The intention may be to avoid those claims where a policyholder fails to take reasonable steps to protect the property at the time of purchase.
Consider the following example
A vendor leaves the keys in the vehicle, while demonstrating the car to a purchaser, and grants a thief an early opportunity to abscond with the vehicle.
In this instance, mere inadvertance on the part of the policyholder would not enable the insurer to succeed with the deception exclusion"
Unless there are fact we are unaware of, the loss of your car is insured - your policy will have a complaints procedure which must be followed before your can contact the FOS.
First of all, have the claim referred to a manager - if you still get no joy, invoke the complaints procedure. If still no joy, got to the FOS.
Whoever has kicked this claim out does not understand how their own policy wording works.
The following is the verbatim text from the Chartered Insurance Institute Motor Insurance exam course book;
"The clause states "you are not insured for loss of your car be deception by someone who claims to be a buyer or a buying or selling agent.
Some insurers would not place too strict an interpretation on the above exclusion. The intention may be to avoid those claims where a policyholder fails to take reasonable steps to protect the property at the time of purchase.
Consider the following example
A vendor leaves the keys in the vehicle, while demonstrating the car to a purchaser, and grants a thief an early opportunity to abscond with the vehicle.
In this instance, mere inadvertance on the part of the policyholder would not enable the insurer to succeed with the deception exclusion"
Unless there are fact we are unaware of, the loss of your car is insured - your policy will have a complaints procedure which must be followed before your can contact the FOS.
First of all, have the claim referred to a manager - if you still get no joy, invoke the complaints procedure. If still no joy, got to the FOS.
By inference, flip_flop has made the case that the strict interpretation of the described scenario is indeed theft by means of deception but that some insurers would not apply that interpretation in cases such as this.
Hymie - should the margin commentary give all possible scenarios instead of the one example it does give? Do the other margin commentaries encapsulate every scenario within the sections they adjoin? How wide would the margin need to be for this to be the case?
The simple fact is this can be nothing other than theft by deception however the FOS should investigate and determine whether the clause is being invoked in a reasonable manner.
All-in-all his thread has been quite inconsequential, especially considering those that keep calling for the OP to contact the FOS, since it was made patently clear in the last sentence of the question that the FOS has already been informed and it is they who shall decide.
Hymie - should the margin commentary give all possible scenarios instead of the one example it does give? Do the other margin commentaries encapsulate every scenario within the sections they adjoin? How wide would the margin need to be for this to be the case?
The simple fact is this can be nothing other than theft by deception however the FOS should investigate and determine whether the clause is being invoked in a reasonable manner.
All-in-all his thread has been quite inconsequential, especially considering those that keep calling for the OP to contact the FOS, since it was made patently clear in the last sentence of the question that the FOS has already been informed and it is they who shall decide.
