Looking for some advice on an insurance situation

duckworth · 08-08-2011 9:46am #1

My wife's car wouldn't start the other day, so she called the rescue company her insurers provide.

The guy came out, looked at the car, and told her the battery was dead. So he jump-started the engine and she was off again. She drove the 5 minute journey home.

The next day, she gets back into the car, and it won't start again. She calls this same guy, he tells her she needs a new battery. He comes out, installs the new battery on the spot, and charges her €60.

A couple of hours later, she gets into the car, and it breaks down a third time. This time, she rings the rescue company, and they send out a van (the previous guy had arrived in just a car). They say that the car has completely seized because it was low in oil, and the engine is beyond repair.

Now, the first guy who looked at the car did mention in passing that the car might need some oil, but he gave no indication that it was urgent, or that 5 minutes driving would cause the car to be damaged beyond repair. The docket he filled in for us simply says dead battery and jump-start.

Do we have a legitimate grievance here do you think? The insurance company say they won't cover for mechanical failure, so we have to fork out on a new car now, and money is pretty tight.

P.s. hope this is the right place to post this mods..

whippet · 08-08-2011 10:00am

an emergency/recovery service is exactly that. They did their job and got the car started.

The fact that he mentioned that the car was low in oil should have triggered yourself or your missus to get it sorted. The fact that the engine is now a write off due to the fact that it was starved of oil has nothing whatsoever to do with the emergency service.

No insurance company will pay out for mechanical failure.

All drivers should have the basic competence to check oil, coolant, tyres, water and lights before being let near the driver seat.

Unfortunatly you will have to chalk this one up to experience and remember 'dip for oil' on a regular basis .. it won't happen again.

biko · 08-08-2011 10:05am

Afaik he did what was expected of him, got the car started.
Don't think you have a case - sorry about the car.

coffee_cake · 08-08-2011 10:07am

She should be checking for oil herself, not depending on a rescue person.
He was called to jump start car and did, that's the end of it. No case I would say.
sorry about the car

duckworth · 08-08-2011 10:15am

Thanks for responses. Just to note - he wasn't called specifically to jumpstart the car. He diagnosed the problem as such twice and did the relevant repairs.

My problem is that there was never a battery problem, and the problem was the oil all along. I just thought he should have spotted it. And at least not have had to fork out €60 on a battery that wasn't needed.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 10:17am

Ooooo.... This is a tasty one.

Firstly, obtain the details of the Breakdown Assistance and see exactly what they have to do.

One would assume that they have an obligation to get your car going but so in a professional manner etc.

Secondly, find out if the lack of oil was the reason why the vehicle was failing to fire. You could obtain a professional report from a Motor Engineer for this.

There is a definition in law called Non Feasance or Mis Feasance. It is defined as The non-performance of some act which ought to be performed.

Whilst your Insurer's wont pay for the repairs to your vehicle as it was a mechanical failure and that does not fall under the remit of your policy (or any motor policy) you could state that if the low oil level was a contributory factor of the vehicle failing then the mechanical breakdown company should have known this as professionals and in turn could be seen as liable. Furthermore, as the Insurer provided the service and acted as an intermedeitary then they could also hold a % of liability if the breakdown company refute the claim

This isnt very descriptive as I am on my phone but the end game here is that this could all cost you a bit of money in Legal costs etc and may equate to the same price as repairing the vehicle

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 10:21am

duckworth wrote: »

Just to note - he wasn't called specifically to jumpstart the car. He diagnosed the problem as such twice and did the relevant repairs.

Which means he could hold a liability. Indeed, two seperate engineers diagnosed the same issue.

duckworth wrote: »

My problem is that there was never a battery problem, and the problem was the oil all along. I just thought he should have spotted it. And at least not have had to fork out €60 on a battery that wasn't needed.

Assuming they gave you back the original battery and you still have it, preserve it and have a test carried out to see what kind of charge it was holding too.

robtri · 08-08-2011 10:23am

sorry about your loss of a car dude...
mind u a replacement engine be a cheaper fix than a new car...

Alos am i the only one thinking that this is your fault and no one elses, stop trying to blame someone else... you starved the car of oil you fecked the engine...

Highly unlikely low oil would stop the car starting, and even more unlikely that if it did a jump start would get it going...

next car, take more notice of the car basics and consider this an expensive lesson in car owernship

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 10:28am

robtri wrote: »

sorry about your loss of a car dude...
mind u a replacement engine be a cheaper fix than a new car...

Alos am i the only one thinking that this is your fault and no one elses, stop trying to blame someone else... you starved the car of oil you fecked the engine...

Highly unlikely low oil would stop the car starting, and even more unlikely that if it did a jump start would get it going...

next car, take more notice of the car basics and consider this an expensive lesson in car owernship

Change the scenario. MugMugs goes to the Doctor with a cough. Doctor diagnoses a Cold and gives Anti Biotics. MugMugs actually has Lung cancer (god forbid) and had it been diagnosed on time, MugMugs would have survived.

Is the Doctor not somewhat at fault for his misdiagnosis with catastrophic consequences for MugMugs ?

duckworth · 08-08-2011 10:31am

I should probably have mentioned already, but the car had had a full service and undergone the NCT successfully about 5 weeks beforehand. We had no reason to assume the oil might be low (although we never did check it in the five weeks after).

YouTookMyName · 08-08-2011 10:35am

What kind of car? Year? Engine?

duckworth · 08-08-2011 10:36am

Mugmugs - thanks for your detailed and insightful input.

I probably won't go down the legal road because, as you said, the costs could be high. I accept we'll probably just have to get a new car.

It just annoyed me that this whole situation could have been avoided.

duckworth · 08-08-2011 10:36am

'01 Renault Clio. No idea of what engine.

Tigger · 08-08-2011 10:36am

MugMugs wrote: »

Change the scenario. MugMugs goes to the Doctor with a cough. Doctor diagnoses a Cold and gives Anti Biotics. MugMugs actually has Lung cancer (god forbid) and had it been diagnosed on time, MugMugs would have survived.

Is the Doctor not somewhat at fault for his misdiagnosis with catastrophic consequences for MugMugs ?

Road start servies are more like an ambulance than a doctor. If mcmugs has a fit of coughing at work so bad that they can't get home and the ambulance drops them home on there request after mentioning that that is a bad cough and mcmughs doesn't go to the doctor. Then it's mcmugs fault for smoking too much not the paramedics fault for nOt doing a full pathology workup

Tigger · 08-08-2011 10:39am

duckworth wrote: »

'01 Renault Clio. No idea of what engine.

Avoided by you putting oil in the car

robtri · 08-08-2011 10:57am

MugMugs wrote: »

Change the scenario. MugMugs goes to the Doctor with a cough. Doctor diagnoses a Cold and gives Anti Biotics. MugMugs actually has Lung cancer (god forbid) and had it been diagnosed on time, MugMugs would have survived.

Is the Doctor not somewhat at fault for his misdiagnosis with catastrophic consequences for MugMugs ?

what?? why change the scenario...

roadside asst guy was called out to a non starting car, diagnosed the issue as a battery issue, jump started and car worked..
car failed again, repalced battery was solution

both time the solution worked and was correct.

As a side note he informed the owner of the vehicle his oil was low...
as low oil wouldnt cause a non starting of the car, which could be started by a jump... the low oil wasnt the problem he was asked to deal with.

Henry Ford III · 08-08-2011 10:59am

I'm far from sure you have any right of redress here unfortunately OP.

If the battery needed boosting day 1, then it was down on charge. Another failure shortly afterwards points to failure of the battery charge. In the circumstances (recent service) and in the absence of something obvious like a big oil leak, it's not unreasonable to assume there was sufficient oil in the engine. You should have checked it during that period yourself too.

p.s. Just seen he advised low oil. That actually weakens your position.

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 11:04am

robtri wrote: »

what?? why change the scenario...

roadside asst guy was called out to a non starting car, diagnosed the issue as a battery issue, jump started and car worked..
car failed again, repalced battery was solution

both time the solution worked and was correct.

As a side note he informed the owner of the vehicle his oil was low...
as low oil wouldnt cause a non starting of the car, which could be started by a jump... the low oil wasnt the problem he was asked to deal with.

How do you know this was correct ? Any oaf can jump a car, doesnt mean this is the proximate cause of the actual issue at hand.

So he diagnosed an issue and didnt take action. I'm playing devils advocate here but should he not have acted on the fact that he knew the oil pressure was low ?

Delta Kilo · 08-08-2011 12:01pm

MugMugs, Im sorry, but you clearly have not got a clue what you are talking about.

Firstly, oil level and oil pressure are two separate things. Emergency assist guy did exactly what he was supposed to do in this case, the lack of oil had nothing to do with him and has nothing to do with an engine being able to start or not (unless it has already seized, in this case, it hadnt).

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 12:14pm

Delta Kilo wrote: »

MugMugs, Im sorry, but you clearly have not got a clue what you are talking about.

Firstly, oil level and oil pressure are two separate things. Emergency assist guy did exactly what he was supposed to do in this case, the lack of oil had nothing to do with him and has nothing to do with an engine being able to start or not (unless it has already seized, in this case, it hadnt).

Eh, Firstly, read the charter, Attack the Post.... Not the Poster.

Secondly, When exactly did I differentiate between oil level and oil pressure?

Thirdly, review the thread where I suggested an independent motor assessment of the proximate cause of failure of the vehicle.

You dont know what was stopping that car from not firing. You may have a common incling like everybody else that it was a low battery (which would seem most likely) but you still dont actually know what was wrong.

coylemj · 08-08-2011 12:37pm

Tigger wrote: »

Road start servies are more like an ambulance than a doctor. If mcmugs has a fit of coughing at work so bad that they can't get home and the ambulance drops them home on there request after mentioning that that is a bad cough and mcmughs doesn't go to the doctor. Then it's mcmugs fault for smoking too much not the paramedics fault for nOt doing a full pathology workup

I agree. The rescue service companies will tell you that 85% or so of breakdowns or non-starters are due to simple problem that can be fixed on the spot so the people they send out are not car doctors, their job is to get you moving and nothing else. If you want your car thoroughly checked out, send it in for an NCT or pay the AA to check it out.

The analogy of the ambulance is valid, the visit to a doctor is not a valid comparison because the guy the rescue service sends out is probably not a fully trained mechanic any more than a UPC installer has a degree in electrical engineering.

Delta Kilo · 08-08-2011 1:13pm

MugMugs wrote: »

So he diagnosed an issue and didnt take action. I'm playing devils advocate here but should he not have acted on the fact that he knew the oil pressure was low ?

Here is where you differentiate between low oil pressure and low oil, two separate issues altogether.

MugMugs wrote: »

Secondly, find out if the lack of oil was the reason why the vehicle was failing to fire. You could obtain a professional report from a Motor Engineer for this.

There is a definition in law called Non Feasance or Mis Feasance. It is defined as The non-performance of some act which ought to be performed.

A lack of oil will not stop an engine from firing, unless it has previously seized, this is what nearly every poster in this thread has already stated. An engine will run for a couple of minutes without oil, at which point the heat will cause the metal to expand and seize up.

The emergency guy was there to get the car going, not to do a service on it, the fact that he mentioned the low oil LEVEL shows he was a decent type and was giving the owner of the car a heads up.

You clearly know your stuff about Law, but it is clear from what you have posted that your knowledge of cars is lacking. Maybe you should stick to what you know best, and leave the diagnostics advice to those who know their cars. Almost everyone in this thread has stated the same thing that unfortunately, the car owner has no remit and has learned an expensive lesson in car maintenance.

Big Nasty · 08-08-2011 1:22pm

duckworth wrote: »

I should probably have mentioned already, but the car had had a full service and undergone the NCT successfully about 5 weeks beforehand. We had no reason to assume the oil might be low (although we never did check it in the five weeks after).

If the car had a full service only 5 weeks ago and the engine has now seized due to lack of oil I would be going back to the mechanic not blaming breakdown assist.

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 1:30pm

Delta Kilo wrote: »

Here is where you differentiate between low oil pressure and low oil, two separate issues altogether.

Apologies. I should'nt have put that in and can only assume I did as I hasently typed the same.

Delta Kilo wrote: »

A lack of oil will not stop an engine from firing, unless it has previously seized, this is what nearly every poster in this thread has already stated. An engine will run for a couple of minutes without oil, at which point the heat will cause the metal to expand and seize up.

Delta Kilo wrote: »

The emergency guy was there to get the car going, not to do a service on it, the fact that he mentioned the low oil LEVEL shows he was a decent type and was giving the owner of the car a heads up.

Irrespecitve of his decency it could be argued that as he had indentified an issue with the oil level that he should have acted on the same. Like I said, I am playing Devils advocate and it's all very reliant on what the actual terms and conditions of Break Down Assist carry.

Delta Kilo wrote: »

You clearly know your stuff about Law, but it is clear from what you have posted that your knowledge of cars is lacking.

I am not mechanically inept. I am not completely experienced however have a basic understanding of the same. I have never claimed to possess a vast knowledge of the mechanics of a motor vehicle.

Delta Kilo wrote: »

Maybe you should stick to what you know best, and leave the diagnostics advice to those who know their cars. Almost everyone in this thread has stated the same thing that unfortunately, the car owner has no remit and has learned an expensive lesson in car maintenance.

I resent your ascertation and indeed your above comments. This is a public forum. Indeed the thread is entitled "Looking for advice on an Insurance situation"
I've attempted to do this. I find your manner and tone quite agressive and with the greatest of respects request that you desist from speculating on my knowledge of Mechanics/Law/Insurance.

I made a mistake in my initial inclusion of Oil Pressure. You've pointed out my error and I have accepted it.

Move on.

Delta Kilo · 08-08-2011 2:05pm

Yes and of course your advice is very welcome, however on this occasion it seems you have to get your bit in and attack anyone who points out to you that what you are saying is wrong.

As has been pointed out, it is not the emergency guys job to check peoples oil levels. He got the car started, it ran, it wouldnt start again due to a (correctly diagnosed) faulty battery. He replaced the battery, car starts. He has done everything he has to do. He has solved the problem. Job done.

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 2:09pm

Sorry but who exactly have I attacked and how exactly do you know the level of service required from the service provider? You're making assumptions with no foundation.

Magic Beans · 08-08-2011 2:14pm

Was there no oil warning light illuminated on the dash? Surely it must have been if the engine was on the point of seizure?

coylemj · 08-08-2011 3:26pm

Delta Kilo wrote: »

You clearly know your stuff about Law

Obviously you've been impressed by his use of pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo but I suspect he knows as little about the law as he does about cars.

He hasn't contributed to the Legal forum in the past month, I'm not really surprised because he'd probably be laughed out of it with statements like 'I resent your ascertation'.

MugMugs · 08-08-2011 3:40pm

coylemj wrote: »

Obviously you've been impressed by his use of pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo but I suspect he knows as little about the law as he does about cars.

He hasn't contributed to the Legal forum in the past month, I'm not really surprised because he'd probably be laughed out of it with statements like 'I resent your ascertation'.

ummm, What relevance does this post have in relation to this thread ? Furthermore, what does where I post have to do with anything?

Have you anything constructive to add or are you just out to start a slagging match ?

-Chris- · 08-08-2011 3:43pm

MugMugs wrote: »

ummm, What relevance does this post have in relation to this thread ? Furthermore, what does where I post have to do with anything?

Have you anything constructive to add or are you just out to start a slagging match ?

@coylemj & MugsMugs - Both of you drop it right now please.

duckworth · 08-08-2011 10:18pm

Just to jump to Mugmugs' defense - what I was asking was essentially a legal question anyway, and he answered it in a most helpful way. As far as I can see, other people have jumped into personal attacks against him, and not the other way around.

Thanks for all the other helpful opinions too.

Looking for some advice on an insurance situation

Comments