Windscreen Cover

tailgunner

Hope this is the right section!

Someone smashed in the rear windscreen of my car last night in Cork City - completely destroyed it, glass everywhere, etc.

I have fully comprehensive insurance with Liberty (formerly Quinn), but I don't have windscreen cover as an optional extra. Rang Liberty this afternoon, and they're saying they won't cover this, as I don't have the optional windscreen cover.

My understanding was that optional windscreen cover would mean I can claim for a windscreen being repaired/replaced without it affecting my no claims bonus - I didn't think it meant I can't claim at all.

Surely there is a difference between a pebble causing a crack in my windscreen while I'm driving, and some lunatic smashing it to pieces while it's parked outside my house?

I'm not looking for any legal advice - just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

whomitconcerns

i would not have thought that your rear window was covered by windscreen cover anyway??????????? Or did I misunderstand your issue? Anyway I would not be claiming on it as it would adversely affect your policy for renewal cost ie losing your ncb.

If you had the windscreen cover and it applied to this case it would repair your windscreen and not affect your ncb that the point of it so your correct on that.

Anan1

How much will the glass cost, and what's the excess on your policy?

stimpson

OSI wrote: »

The name "Windscreen Cover" is a bit of a misnomer, it usually covers all windows in a car.

Yup. I had a side window put in to grab an iPod. They covered the window, but refused cover for the iPod even though I had Audio Equipment cover.

whomitconcerns

OSI wrote: »

The name "Windscreen Cover" is a bit of a misnomer, it usually covers all windows in a car.

Good info to have thanks!!!

Mar4ix

there is number windscreen repair companies. Call them first. I had punto with third part plus fire and theft insurance, car failed nct for small crack on windscreen,i wasnt sure about windscreen cover, however rang one of companies, they took insurance details, and called me back, said i am covered. so they changed windscreen with no costs from my side.
there was somewhere thread about to not call to insurance company, but call windscreen companies, to find out, you covered or not. even if not, you will find out prices.

tailgunner

Thanks for the replies.

Had a look through my policy details and it looks like they will cover this, but it will affect my no claims bonus.

I got a quote for 160 euro to replace the rear window. I'm fairly sure this is less than the excess on my policy, so not much I can do!

MrFrisp

tailgunner wrote: »

Hope this is the right section!

Someone smashed in the rear windscreen of my car last night in Cork City - completely destroyed it, glass everywhere, etc.

I have fully comprehensive insurance with Liberty (formerly Quinn), but I don't have windscreen cover as an optional extra. Rang Liberty this afternoon, and they're saying they won't cover this, as I don't have the optional windscreen cover.

My understanding was that optional windscreen cover would mean I can claim for a windscreen being repaired/replaced without it affecting my no claims bonus - I didn't think it meant I can't claim at all.

Surely there is a difference between a pebble causing a crack in my windscreen while I'm driving, and some lunatic smashing it to pieces while it's parked outside my house?

I'm not looking for any legal advice - just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

On the way into town this morning...Saw another car with the rear window smashed in as well..

It was on Abbey Street..

Some feckin loons out there...




.

ChtuluDawn

tailgunner wrote: »

Hope this is the right section!

Someone smashed in the rear windscreen of my car last night in Cork City - completely destroyed it, glass everywhere, etc.

I have fully comprehensive insurance with Liberty (formerly Quinn), but I don't have windscreen cover as an optional extra. Rang Liberty this afternoon, and they're saying they won't cover this, as I don't have the optional windscreen cover.

My understanding was that optional windscreen cover would mean I can claim for a windscreen being repaired/replaced without it affecting my no claims bonus - I didn't think it meant I can't claim at all.

Surely there is a difference between a pebble causing a crack in my windscreen while I'm driving, and some lunatic smashing it to pieces while it's parked outside my house?

I'm not looking for any legal advice - just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

The bolded part is the crux of the matter.If windscreen/glass cover is an optional extra and you did not pick it at policy inception then you arent covered for it,pretty clear cut in fairness.

Liberty,nononsense,Tesco and a number of other insurers offer a more stripped down "comprehensive" policy where things like windscreen cover or breakdown assistance are added as required.

People think they are getting a good deal but when it comes to making a claim they realise the 30 quid they saved buying the policy has in actual fact screwed them over.

Re excesses being paid on windscreen cover,no insurer that Ive ever dealt with and Ive dealt with pretty much all of them,has an excess on glass cover.They may have limits as in they will cover you up to €250 if you dont use their recommended repairers for example but thats about it.

Likewise for glass claims effecting your NCB.

The disinformation in this thread is staggering.

stimpson wrote: »

Yup. I had a side window put in to grab an iPod. They covered the window, but refused cover for the iPod even though I had Audio Equipment cover.

Why would an ipod be covered?

The audio equipment on a car policy covers the car stereo,ipods etc may be covered under personal effects on the policy but thats it.

ofcork

Someone i know got caught with this when it was quinn,had to pay for their own windscreen,i believe quinn were one of the only companies at the time who didnt include windscreen cover on fully comp policies.

bazz26

People need to check what is/isn't covered under the policy before taking out insurance, don't take anything for granted. Thing is most people just go with the cheapest quote they get and are happy with that at the time.

tailgunner

ChtuluDawn wrote: »

The bolded part is the crux of the matter.If windscreen/glass cover is an optional extra and you did not pick it at policy inception then you arent covered for it,pretty clear cut in fairness.

I don't think it is that clear cut though. This document states:

"Windscreen breakage claims are subject to the standard policy excess and will affect your no-claims discount unless the optional windscreen cover is taken.

Where optional windscreen cover is selected, the most we will pay is €500 in any one period of insurance and no more than two claims. Where work is not carried out by our approved windscreen specialists we will not pay more than €150 for replacement or €50 for repair. All claims must be verified by contacting the 24 hours windscreen helpline before any repair or replacement work is carried out."

From that, I would take it that I'm covered regardless of whether I take the optional windscreen cover or not, the only difference being whether my no claims bonus is affected or not, or if the excess on my policy applies.

ChtuluDawn wrote: »

Re excesses being paid on windscreen cover,no insurer that Ive ever dealt with and Ive dealt with pretty much all of them,has an excess on glass cover.They may have limits as in they will cover you up to €250 if you dont use their recommended repairers for example but thats about it.

This is probably the case if I had the optional cover.

bazz26 wrote: »

People need to check what is/isn't covered under the policy before taking out insurance, don't take anything for granted. Thing is most people just go with the cheapest quote they get and are happy with that at the time.

Yeah that's my lesson learned anyway!

MugMugs

OSI wrote: »

The name "Windscreen Cover" is a bit of a misnomer, it usually covers all windows in a car.

Not always.

Sun roofs / moon roofs etc and sometimes fly windows are excluded.

stimpson

ChtuluDawn wrote: »

Why would an ipod be covered?

The audio equipment on a car policy covers the car stereo,ipods etc may be covered under personal effects on the policy but thats it.

It didn't state this on the policy document. An iPod is audio equipment and the policy just stated audio equipment. It was covered under personal effects, but not worth claiming with excess.

MugMugs

stimpson wrote: »

It didn't state this on the policy document. An iPod is audio equipment and the policy just stated audio equipment. It was covered under personal effects, but not worth claiming with excess.

Liberty Insurance wrote:

Radio, audio and navigation equipment
For loss of or damage to radio-receiving or transmitting equipment, audio
equipment, electronic navigation or radar detection equipment permanently
fixed to the vehicle, the most we will pay is:
a 5% of the value of the vehicle before the accident happened; or
b €635;
whichever is lower.
The policy does not cover the loss of or damage to mobile phones and their
accessories or spare parts.

.

stimpson

Where did I say that I was with Liberty? It was probably RSA if I remember correctly.

I read the policy document. I rang and asked them where it was defined. I just got fobbed off.

MugMugs

stimpson wrote: »

Where did I say that I was with Liberty? It was probably RSA if I remember correctly.

I read the policy document. I rang and asked them where it was defined. I just got fobbed off.

Where did I say you did. It was an example. Policies are pretty standard in their wording.

Ipods are accessories, not audio equipment.

stimpson

MugMugs wrote: »

Where did I say you did. It was an example.

A pointless example perhaps. I said I read my policy document and there was no such exclusion. There was no definition of an accessory. It's equipment that plays audio as far as I'm concerned.

MugMugs

stimpson wrote: »

A pointless example perhaps. I said I read my policy document and there was no such exclusion. There was no definition of an accessory. It's equipment that plays audio as far as I'm concerned.

No, a pointless example would be quoting the definition of a Ball point pen.

It's relevant. You cannot remember the Insurer. You say you challenged them but you don't seem to have complained and appealed to the Ombudsman charged with resolving issues like this.

Despite your opinion, the contract you took out with your Insurer says differently and as such, it would appear they acted within the rules they engaged a contract with you on. You think you're right and failed to act on it.... your loss.

A pioneer HiFi taking up half the back seat is also audio, should it fall under the vehicles audio equipment?

stimpson

MugMugs wrote: »

No, a pointless example would be quoting the definition of a Ball point pen.

Perhaps if you were insuring a fountain pen.

It's relevant. You cannot remember the Insurer. You say you challenged them but you don't seem to have complained and appealed to the Ombudsman charged with resolving issues like this.

It was 4 years ago. I said it was probably RSA. I can say for certainty it wasn't Liberty/Quinn as I know I've never had a policy with them. Your assumption I didn't complain to the Ombudsman is also irrelevant.

Despite your opinion, the contract you took out with your Insurer says differently and as such, it would appear they acted within the rules they engaged a contract with you on. You think you're right and failed to act on it.... your loss.

Without seeing my policy document you are just speculating. I accept it was my loss. That's kinda why I brought it up.

A pioneer HiFi taking up half the back seat is also audio, should it fall under the vehicles audio equipment?

I'm sure with a power rectifier and the correct cabling then a HiFi could conceivably be integrated with an ICE setup, but it would be far from practical. My iPod was setup with an integrated dock and could be controlled in much the same way as a CD changer. So I don't agree that they are comparable.

MugMugs

stimpson wrote: »

I didn't complain to the Ombudsman is also irrelevant.

Not really. If you were right then you would have won had it gone to the Ombudsman.

stimpson wrote: »

Without seeing my policy document you are just speculating.

Not really. I've a lot of experience on this topic and with these documents. I've probably written more of them than you've read.


Anyway, this is all OT.

stimpson

MugMugs wrote: »

Not really. If you were right then you would have won had it gone to the Ombudsman.

It was easier to pick up a second hand iPod on Adverts.ie for €50. I have better things to be doing with my time.

Not really. I've a lot of experience on this topic and with these documents. I've probably written more of them than you've read.

I'm not sure how that helps you interpret a policy you haven't read. I write software for a living. It doesn't mean I know how any random app was coded.

Anyway, this is all OT.

And irrelevant

MugMugs

MugMugs wrote: »

Policies are pretty standard in their wording.

stimpson wrote: »

I'm not sure how that helps you interpret a policy you haven't read. I write software for a living. It doesn't mean I know how any random app was coded.

:rolleyes:

stimpson

MugMugs wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Pretty standard.

So not exactly the same then?