Toby Mack Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 After having the car (and insurance! ) for 2 months I have finally got my schedule to check. On that I have noticed an exclusion that I am not too happy about...... "No cover applies for accidental damage, fire theft or malicious damage unless you provide a valid MOT certificate which is in force at the date and time of the claim date" Apart from the slightly dodgy english, I am not too happy that my car appears uninsured the moment it fails an MOT, even if it is in my garage (or someone elses! ) being fixed!! The policy is "sureterm kitcar" with NIG. Can anyone comment on this? Is it standard for Sureterm? Anyone got the same clause in other policies? I reckon I have had at least half a dozen different policies in the last 15 years or so and I have never noticed this sort of clause. Anyone else? I'm not really sure what to do about this. I don't think it is an acceptable exclusion and it has taken them 2 months to bring it to my attention. I'm going to call them tomorrow and see if I can get it removed but I don't hold out much hope. Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Yep I had the same message from Sureterm when I was looking fir insurance, I wanted them to cover me while the car was unregistered for a trip to the MOT testing station and the SVA test centre. They said if I failed either the car would be considered unroadworthy and therefore not insured. To not insure you after a failed MOT when the car is registered is ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian2.1pinto Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 If they didn't point it out when you bought the policy (and the onus of proof would be on the insurer to show that they did so), they can't rely on the clause. From my dealings with the FOS, I'd also guess that they wouldn't support the insurer denying a claim where a warranty (e.g. an in-force MOT) wasn't relevant to the claim (e.g. a theft). Suggest at renewal you tell them to stick it up their and buy a policy from somebody decent e.g. Footman James (no I don't work for them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Mack Posted June 9, 2003 Author Share Posted June 9, 2003 FOS? is this the ombudsman? I would go for footman james but they quoted me around £500 whereas sureterm (and most others) were more like £200, oh and FJ insured my Lotus excel for £138. They certainly did not point this out when I took the insurance or I would have laughed and gone elsewhere. I'll see what Sureterm have to say for themselves tomorrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ight Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 if your car is having work done for MOT etc. would imagine your insurance would cover you ok. this sort of thing normally applies to people who drive round for ages without MOT. if its in a bonafide garage having work done and it gets nicked it should be covered by the garages insurance. dont think insurance is valid for use without a curent MOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Mack Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 I can understand not being insured for driving it without an MOT. After all, that is illegal. But not being insured for fire and theft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adhawkins Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 I can understand not being insured for driving it without an MOT. After all, that is illegal. Not always. You're allowed to drive the car to a pre-booked MOT appointment without an MOT. Also, if you've just failed the MOT, I presume you're allowed to drive it home (unless it's been declared dangerous to drive). Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ight Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Toby, you dont expect an insurance company to be human and thoughtful about things now do you ? if the car is laid up over the winter or for a period of time though, some insurance companies will take this into account and charge you a percenteage of the normal premuim. in this case it does not need to be MOT'd just put all your bits in the post by the way Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Mack Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 Human, reasonable? No, I guess not I've just been on the phone to them and to their (Sureterms) credit they were polite and reasonable and tried to help. I've been told that if I think the car will be off the road without an MOT then I should contact them in writing and they will sort it out with the underwriter. They pointed out that this clause is to stop people driving round without an MOT (which is fair) rather than people who have a legitimate reason for having the car off the road. A bit open ended but better than nothing. I did push to have the fire/theft bit removed from the endorsment but the underwriter refused as it is "and industry standard exclusion and I can get the car MOT'ed up to a month in advance to allow me time to fix it" On the basis that they were cheaper than everyone else and have given me a decent agreed value, I think I will stick with them for the moment. I guess what this means is I need to get the car through it's MOT before doing any major work on it! Thanks for the bits Carl, looks like I'll need them soon to get that MOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.