Riots and motor insurance

johnos1984

Just watching the madness in the UK and I was wondering what the insurance situation would be if your car was burned out or damaged during a riot?

Would they pay out or would it be a case of tough luck.

MugMugs

Generally no cover. Riot, civil commotion or civil unrest are generally specifically excluded under most policies of Insurance.

Looking at QUINN getting a quote there. "General exclusions which apply to the while policy"
"7 we will not cover any loss or damage caused by war, riot, revolution, any act of terrorism or any similar event unless we have to provide cover under the road traffic act"

johnos1984

MugMugs wrote: »

Generally no cover. Riot, civil commotion or civil unrest are generally specifically excluded under most policies of Insurance.

I was pretty much thinking the same.

In that case would I be covered if I drove over a few would be rioters trying to take my car?

MugMugs

johnos1984 wrote: »

I was pretty much thinking the same.

In that case would I be covered if I drove over a few would be rioters trying to take my car?

I am sure they could be compensated for the loss of limbs under the RTA. Think you'd still be fecked though.

Like your thinking !

I always found that a bit strange, on a comp policy random vandalism would be covered but damage due to a riot is not, bit of a bummer if your car is written off.

Magic Beans

What if it is stolen and used to ram a shop as part of a riot? Do you get paid as a theft?

johnos1984

RoverJames wrote: »

I always found that a bit strange, on a comp policy random vandalism would be covered but damage due to a riot is not, bit of a bummer if your car is written off.

It's a matter of proving it. You could always say you were threatened by youths who said they would do it

Magic Beans

Just as a matter of interest when does a disturbance legally become a riot, as opposed to Sky calling it a riot?

AFAIK there is an act in law call the "Riot Act" which historically was read out by the Police Chief at a disturbance ordering the micreants to disperse which offically declared the incident to be a riot and gave the police additional powers. If the Act wasn't read out then was a riot declared? Could this effect the insurance situation?

MugMugs

Magic Beans wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest when does a disturbance legally become a riot, as opposed to Sky calling it a riot?

AFAIK there is an act in law call the "Riot Act" which historically was read out by the Police Chief at a disturbance ordering the micreants to disperse which offically decleared the incident to be a riot and gave the police additional powers. If the Act wasn't read out then was a riot declared? Could this effect the insurance situation?

Place I used to work used the dictionary definition.

A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.

They refused COMP claims on that basis during the O Connell Street riots a few years back.

Magic Beans

So if three skangers wreck your car the insurance company have a get-out clause? Doesn't seem right.

johnos1984

Magic Beans wrote: »

So if three skangers wreck your car the insurance company have a get-out clause? Doesn't seem right.

Depends on the circumstances I suppose

coylemj

MugMugs wrote: »

A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.

I believe that's called an affray, note the absence of 'violence' meaning there's not yet any damage to person or property, just a mob bent on trouble.

MugMugs wrote: »

A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.

Now that's what I call a riot!

MugMugs

coylemj wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.

I believe that's called an affray, note the absence of 'violence' meaning there's not yet any damage to person or property, just a mob bent on trouble.

MugMugs wrote: »

A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.

Now that's what I call a riot!

Ah your pedantic vendetta against me continues. You're not completely incorrect.

coylemj

MugMugs wrote: »

Ah your pedantic vendetta against me continues. You're not completely incorrect.

That's very gracious of you. I am not conducting a vendetta against you, you quoted two definitions only one of which matches that of a riot.

JimmyCrackCorn

What about guys who park the there car at slane/oxygen.... on the main pedestrian route brushed by a million drunken asses.

MugMugs

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

What about guys who park the there car at slane/oxygen.... on the main pedestrian route brushed by a million drunken asses.

It's not violent or a civil unrest. It's an organised pi$$ up.

johnos1984

I think there must be a way around this.

Granted the insurance company won't cover but people cannot be expected to suck it up.

I know in Britain you can submit a claim to the insurance company who will automatically refuse it but then you have to claim off the police authority directly under the Riot Damages Act 1886 under the subrogation clause of insurance law.

That's what I can find out anyway so those people in London are covered.

fletch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/09/insurance-companies-pay-out-riots

pa990

Magic Beans wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest when does a disturbance legally become a riot, as opposed to Sky calling it a riot?

AFAIK there is an act in law call the "Riot Act" which historically was read out by the Police Chief at a disturbance ordering the micreants to disperse which offically declared the incident to be a riot and gave the police additional powers. If the Act wasn't read out then was a riot declared? Could this effect the insurance situation?

I don't have the exact wordiing to hand, but a riot is 12 or more people

phill106

fletch wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/09/insurance-companies-pay-out-riots

and for the mobilely people (is that a word?!)

Insurance companies pledge to pay out for UK riot damage
Damage caused by civil unrest should not impact on people making insurance claims, a Zurich spokesman says, but customers should check their policies

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 August 2011 11.50 BST


Third party fire and theft wouldn't cover a broken window, but would cover fire damage. Photograph: Jim Dyson/Getty Images
Insurers have said they will pay out to customers who have had possessions damaged and stolen in the riots in London and across the rest of the country.

Some policyholders had been concerned that they wouldn't qualify for a payout because the losses were a result of civil unrest, but insurers said this wasn't a problem.

Keith Lewis, a spokesman for insurer Zurich, said: "As a customer it doesn't matter what is happening – the issue of whether it is classed as rioting or civil unrest rises when we as insurers are trying to reclaim costs. It is a back-office issue."

Lewis said Zurich had sent a team of loss adjusters to Tottenham early yesterday morning, and had more specialists ready to visit the scenes of other clashes.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI), which is currently putting the cost to the industry at "tens of millions of pounds", urged those affected to call their insurers as soon as possible.

The ABI's director of general insurance, Nick Starling, said: "We have every sympathy for residents and business owners who have suffered damage to their properties.

"This is a time of enormous stress for them and their insurers will be on hand to answer any questions that they may have."

Home, vehicle and travel policies

The ABI said standard home insurance policies should cover fire, looting or damage caused, and that many policies would also cover accommodation costs for those unable to stay in their homes.

Most commercial insurance policies would cover businesses for damage to their premises, it said, including the interruption to their business as a result.

Some policies would also cover businesses which were not damaged, but whose trade is affected by the aftermath. Owners of businesses which were not damaged but are losing income due to denial of access should check their policies.

Owners of cars damaged in the unrest will be able to claim if they have fully comprehensive cover, but may not qualify for a payout if they have anything less.

Graeme Trudgill of the British Insurance Brokers' Association said for those with third party, fire and theft cover, the situation would depend on what had happened to their vehicle.

"If someone whacks it with a pole then it is not covered; if they set fire to it, it is," he said.

One area where things are less cut and dried is travel insurance. A spokeswoman for the ABI said police officers who have to cancel a holiday because they have had their leave rescinded will be covered, but other people may not.

"If someone's business has been affected, and there is a reason they cannot travel, then they would need to contact their insurer and it would be considered on a case-by-case basis – but even that would not be covered by a standard policy in my view," she said.

Politicians who have had to cut short their holidays to return to London may also find they are not covered.

Robbo

Magic Beans wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest when does a disturbance legally become a riot, as opposed to Sky calling it a riot?

AFAIK there is an act in law call the "Riot Act" which historically was read out by the Police Chief at a disturbance ordering the micreants to disperse which offically declared the incident to be a riot and gave the police additional powers. If the Act wasn't read out then was a riot declared? Could this effect the insurance situation?

Our criminal definition of a Riot requires 12 like minded scallywags, however I'd imagine insurers here would fall back on whatever definition of it suits theire ends better.

Vicxas

Thats really harsh, especially if its not your fault.