Car insurance and essential travel during lockdown.

[CraigHew]

4 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

 

If you start thinking and living that way you may as well just give up. 

 

I cant decide whether you dont understand risk management or you're advocating "let nature take its course"

 

Either way its not my place to argue your opinion.... 

[Terry Everall]

I did fall off my pushbike yesterday and hurt my elbow !!!!

[DonPeffers]

20 hours ago, jim_l said:

Clickbait, I agree.

 

I have a document that describes what I am covered for and when, it makes no mention of whether a journey is essential or not. The terms of my insurance haven't changed. 

 

The mirror article cleverly says "If it’s a non-­essential journey and being used ­outside the terms of the policy .."   Something to put in the paper, no merit whatsoever. 

 

 

The Mirror article I found quotes an insurance broker NOT an insurer!

Can you provide the link Jim so we can be sure?

Just for clarity I never use Fizzogbook.

 

Edit---The Mirror article I found had report and photo of a Mr Cummings and driving as an eyesight test so I suppose that would make item 30 on the list of acceptable reasons.

Also would you get a new insurance document for every lockdown, tier change or even Martial Law?

[Steve (sdh2903)]

1 hour ago, CraigHew said:

 

I cant decide whether you dont understand risk management or you're advocating "let nature take its course"

 

Either way its not my place to argue your opinion.... 

 

My point is you can be just as likely to need emergency assistance doing a whole host of things. Even in your own home. 

 

Life is for living. If you feel that leaving the car/westy at home is you doing your bit then good on you. 

[jim_l]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-motorists-told-insurance-might-be-invalid-for-non-essential-trips-during-lockdown-12128401

 

Coronavirus: Motorists 'will still be insured' for non-essential lockdown journeys.

 

In any case my policy is a legal document that we are both party to, neither party can unilaterally change it, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.   They would at the very least be required to inform me if something I might do would invalidate my cover, or they could be party to me (and millions of others) driving uninsured and therefore breaking the law. 

 

The western world in its entirety seems to have lost the ability to critically evaluate incoming information.

 

 

[TAFKARM]

@jim_l Do you fancy a job as Rush Motorsport comms manager? 😄

[Blatman]

Did we not establish in an earlier thread that even without tax and an MOT, vehicle insurance is still valid.

The list of essential journeys is not, as far as I am aware, enshrined in primary legislation of any kind and would surely look to the Road Traffic Act as the primary legislative instrument.

I doubt very much insurers could "reverse engineer" excuses for not paying out using government guidelines instead of LAW as their basis for so doing. BUT that doesn't stop them doing it and forcing the motorist to take his chances fighting it with the Ombudsman and the courts.

That said I broadly agree with the naysayers. The article seems to be click-bait for the hard of thinking, and Nick Freeman, who is either hero or villain clearly felt like getting his name in the paper now that car use and commuting in general is very very down on pre-Covid levels. I imagine his case load has shrunk by a similar proportion so he gets free advertising by lending unsubstantiated quotes with zero risk of being taken to task by any authority or regulatory body, especially given the caveat of "and outside the terms of the policy".

 

And to help with this, was this a journalistic piece or was it a story on FaceTwit that the papers picked up? If it was the latter then it is almost certainly bovine excrement. Real news of this type is rarely broken on social media. The irony is that real news is being broken by social media. See what I did there?  

[jim_l]

2 hours ago, Blatman said:

I doubt very much insurers could "reverse engineer" excuses for not paying out using government guidelines instead of LAW as their basis for so doing.

 

Agree, especially when the guidelines and the legislation allow travel simply in order to "spend time ..or exercise.. outdoors.."  The word 'essential' doesn't really effectively define what we are and aren't supposed to be doing here. 

 

 

 

 

 

[DonPeffers]

So if the forums analysis is correct it follows that our Government is simply wasting Civil Servants time and taxpayers money creating vast numbers of rules which amount to nothing.

 

Why has the ABI source not been named in the Sky report? Seems a major oversight!

 

In reality only your underwriter will confirm what your policy will cover or not cover.

 

Years ago there were many what were called 'small print insurers' and thankfully their number has diminished, but not because of the Ombudsman who is hopeless.

 

[Blatman]

12 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

So if the forums analysis is correct it follows that our Government is simply wasting Civil Servants time and taxpayers money creating vast numbers of rules which amount to nothing.

No, there are HUGE numbers of people who will simply obey without questioning too deeply. Then there's us who, with a modicum of intelligence and able to apply analysis to the spoken and written word, will question what we are being told in the hope that our decisions are more informed, and finally there are the "anti-xxxxxx" who simply seek to disobey with no real reason, purpose and with no actual facts behind them.

[DonPeffers]

We are back to the old saying 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools'.

 

However once the public realise they have been made a fool of by adhering to rules established for everyone's benefit, only to see those who should know better breaking them, then the whole construct breaks down and the obedience is gone.

[Blatman]

16 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

We are back to the old saying 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools'.

 

That never went away. The difference right now is the populations willingness to believe social media "news"

 

17 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

 

However once the public realise they have been made a fool of by adhering to rules established for everyone's benefit, only to see those who should know better breaking them, then the whole construct breaks down and the obedience is gone.

 

This was discussed elsewhere. Very few people base their actual behavior on the "examples" set by politicians when the assumption is that only "bad" behavior is slavishly adhered to.

[DonPeffers]

Which social media 'news' feeds?

 

Any examples of politicians good behaviour?

[Alan France]

My “contract” is based on the details of the “Insurance Policy Information Document” provided by my Insurance Company. I can’t find any statements removing cover under any of these circumstances so I’ll continue to keep to the terms of the Policy and expect the Insurance Company to keep to theirs.

 

I don’t normally use poor quality journalists for legal advice.

[jim_l]

1 hour ago, DonPeffers said:

In reality only your underwriter will confirm what your policy will cover or not cover.

 

Sorry Don , I disagree, my policy document defines clearly what is covered, at some length, and carefully identifies exclusions. It is the basis for a contract between myself and the insurer. In the event of a claim I fully expect to be held to the text of the policy document, and to hold them so too. 

 

The idea that an underwriter can come along later and decide what is or isn't covered - no! 

 

Jim