Where does she stand?

DecTipp

Hi my girlfriend got stuck in a flood yesterday where the car stopped , she's after taking it to a mechanic where he said the engine is shot and to ring her insurance , the car is a write off , I'm wondering tho , she has comprehensive insurance ,her tax and nct are in date , but she was uncompanied with a provisional licence , will her insurance cover her ???

scrap_man

DecTipp wrote: »

Hi my girlfriend got stuck in a flood yesterday where the car stopped , she's after taking it to a mechanic where he said the engine is shot and to ring her insurance , the car is a write off , I'm wondering tho , she has comprehensive insurance ,her tax and nct are in date , but she was uncompanied with a provisional licence , will her insurance cover her ???

Yes they will, I doubt they would even ask if she was accompanied or not when there wasn't a crash.

Spook_ie

Interesting question, because if she had an accompanying driver with her, the accompanying driver might have advised against or how to drive through flood water.

I agree that they would indemnify against 3rd party claims but this isn't a 3rd party claim, is it?

testicle

Is stupidity covered by insurance?

corktina

i don't think they will pay out for mechanical damage.

Guy:Incognito

testicle wrote: »

Is stupidity covered by insurance?

Yes. People do stupid things every day and crash in to other vehicles, stationary objects, walls, buildings etc.


Driving your car in to a flood and killing the engine may be a separate issue mind.

aisr1ofk43dpy5

Depends was there a road flooded sign up

DecTipp

Hendrix Flat Cervix wrote: »

Depends was there a road flooded sign up

She was driving early yesterday morning , a few cars were caught in the flood after her , it was a country road and the road wasn't lit up , the road was closed soon after !!!

wexie

DecTipp wrote: »

She was driving early yesterday morning , a few cars were caught in the flood after her , it was a country road and the road wasn't lit up , the road was closed soon after !!!

i hope it works out for her but I think she might have a bit of a fight on her hands.

hattoncracker

As far as I know, her insurance should cover it. Her excess may be higher for it though.

aisr1ofk43dpy5

If it was dark and there was no road flooded sign she has a good chance. At least that's how it worked out for a lad I know a few years ago. Best of luck to her hope it works out.

wexie

scrap_man wrote: »

Yes they will, I doubt they would even ask if she was accompanied or not when there wasn't a crash.

just checked axa's policy (cause I was curious) which specifically mentions :

¡ No cover for a provisional licence holder/learner permit holder than is not
meeting the conditions of his/her licence.

http://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-post-130613.pdf

meathstevie

As a rule insurance companies do not cover deliberate acts by the insured that cause damage to the insured property. Driving through a flood in an unsuitable vehicle and then trying to recoup the cost of doing that from your car insurance policy is like asking a pro boxer to give you a smack in the mouth and claim for your broken jaw from a personal injury policy.

wexie

meathstevie wrote: »

As a rule insurance companies do not cover deliberate acts by the insured that cause damage to the insured property. .

DecTipp wrote: »

She was driving early yesterday morning , a few cars were caught in the flood after her , it was a country road and the road wasn't lit up , the road was closed soon after !!!

Doesn't matter, if the roads were dark and conditions uncertain she should have been travelling at a speed appropriate to the conditions (which is how the insurance will probably see it.

Bpmull

I've heard of insurance companies pay out for mechanical damage due to flood damage from driving through floods but I'd say there is only a very few. For a learner driver assuming she's young unless the car is seriously expensive claiming on the insurance would be a disaster and make getting future insurance very expensive and difficult. So if it was me and the car was only worth a few thousand or less I wouldn't even consider claiming. I suppose you need to just check if your specific insurance company will cover it.

aisr1ofk43dpy5

Sure who's to say she wasn't accompanied :-)

DecTipp

Hendrix Flat Cervix wrote: »

Sure who's to say she wasn't accompanied :-)

True it's a 09 ford focus , so expensive enough , I think she rang the insurance and said she was on her own :-( she's was to honest for her own good , but there was no guards on the scene !!!

jennyhayes123

Whose to prove there was no one with her???!!!!!!

wexie

jennyhayes123 wrote: »

Whose to prove there was no one with her???!!!!!!

doesn't really matter though if she's already admitted to it. Getting caught changing the story on such an important point wouldn't be a good thing.

jennyhayes123

No. Such a pity as insurance will look for every excuse not to pay.

Bpmull

Op if she was talking to the insurance what did they say ? Or do they have to send out an accessor?

DecTipp

Bpmull wrote: »

Op if she was talking to the insurance what did they say ? Or do they have to send out an accessor?

Yeah early next week, somehow I think it's going to be bad news !!!

Henry Ford III

Hendrix Flat Cervix wrote: »

Sure who's to say she wasn't accompanied :-)

Honesty and decency. Both sadly lacking in society today.

visual

testicle wrote: »

Is stupidity covered by insurance?

Looking at insurance adverts on television stupidity is their intended customers

aisr1ofk43dpy5

Henry Ford III wrote:

Honesty and decency. Both sadly lacking in society today.

Oh the high horse brigade are in town be very careful with that halo one slip and it becomes a noose. If you have nothing positive to add to the conversation stay out of it.

Al Capwned

A replacement engine might be an option?

I honestly couldn't see the insurance paying out, but sure all they can say is no. Don't lie about her being unaccompanied. Get caught at that and you'll have to worry about more than your policy going up.

Kristopherus

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Honesty and decency. Both sadly lacking in society today.

That works both ways. You can be sure the Axa will try and squirm every which way to avoid paying. Not much honesty & decency there:(.

corktina

Kristopherus wrote: »

That works both ways. You can be sure the Axa will try and squirm every which way to avoid paying. Not much honesty & decency there:(.

I think Axa will be OK with the unaccompanied thing. Someone I know had their car written off by their girlfriend driving unaccompanied very recently and they are paying out, no question (and the NCT was out by a few days

Mikros

Well I know one person whose insurance company paid out for flood damage to an engine, so it's not unheard of. Car was a write off. Mistakes do happen (which is the whole point of insurance). Not sure if the unaccompanied driver will complicate things, but only the insurance company will answer that.

keithclancy

Al Capwned wrote: »

A replacement engine might be an option?

I honestly couldn't see the insurance paying out, but sure all they can say is no. Don't lie about her being unaccompanied. Get caught at that and you'll have to worry about more than your policy going up.

Ah feck that, wouldn't know where else the water went, 6 months down the road wires and connections could start rusting

Henry Ford III

Hendrix Flat Cervix wrote: »

Oh the high horse brigade are in town be very careful with that halo one slip and it becomes a noose. If you have nothing positive to add to the conversation stay out of it.

No high horse in sight. Your tacit suggestion about making a dishonest insurance claim shows you in a bad light however.

I've referred your last suggestion to the mods.

MarkAnthony

Where there are other vehicles involved there is an onus of the insurance company to just get on with it and hash it out, lest MIBI become involved. In this type of scenario I suspect they will fight it.

There's very little point in a learner permit holder having fully comp insurance unless they are going to be accompanied or frankly, is a liar; most policies are only 3rd party when the learner is in the car (in some cases accompanied or not).

You've nothing to lose really by submitting the claim, they'll either pay it or they won't, I assume if the don't there's no claim and no loss of NCB. Get her in a ten year old Micra on 3rd party until she passes the test.

Also as an aside, my father, I think he was in his 60's at the time, had been driving for 40+ years actually got out the car, moved the sign saying 'flood' drove round it, got out, put the sign back, then proceeded to head into what can only be described as a small lake. Cue massive bow wave, water coming in from every crack and the engine stopping at the deepest point. Luckily it started again (how I've no idea) and we go out and spent an hour bailing the car out with de-icer can lids.

We all do stupid things - no one was hurt - life goes on.

Spook_ie

MarkAnthony wrote: »

<snipped>
Also as an aside, my father, I think he was in his 60's at the time, had been driving for 40+ years actually got out the car, moved the sign saying 'flood' drove round it, got out, put the sign back, then proceeded to head into what can only be described as a small lake. Cue massive bow wave, water coming in from every crack and the engine stopping at the deepest point. Luckily it started again (how I've no idea) and we go out and spent an hour bailing the car out with de-icer can lids.

We all do stupid things - no one was hurt - life goes on.

Top Gear Top Tip for this

Al Capwned

keithclancy wrote: »

Ah feck that, wouldn't know where else the water went, 6 months down the road wires and connections could start rusting

Good point!

Hachiko

cant see insurance paying for this.

colm_mcm

I always thought insurance would cover you if your car was parked and the area flooded but didn't think driving through floods was covered.

Had to replace a head gasket years as a result of driving through a flood. Was very lucky the gasket went and not the conrods. Didn't even think the insurance was an option at the time.

dr.fuzzenstein

I'm curious myself, a lot of people have cited stupidity as a reason for not paying out, but it could be said that driving a car into a tree is stupid and they pay for that, they'll just wham up the premium.

braddun

let car dry out it should work

MarkAnthony

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm curious myself, a lot of people have cited stupidity as a reason for not paying out, but it could be said that driving a car into a tree is stupid and they pay for that, they'll just wham up the premium.

The problem is that the OP is very unlikely to have fully comp insurance.

slimjimmc

braddun wrote: »

let car dry out it should work

It might but it's unlikely especially since a mechanic has diagnosed it as terminal (most likely due to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolock )

corktina

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The problem is that the OP is very unlikely to have fully comp insurance.

did you read the thread at all....first post "she has comprehensive insurance"

MarkAnthony

DecTipp wrote: »

Hi my girlfriend got stuck in a flood yesterday where the car stopped , she's after taking it to a mechanic where he said the engine is shot and to ring her insurance , the car is a write off , I'm wondering tho , she has comprehensive insurance ,her tax and nct are in date , but she was uncompanied with a provisional licence , will her insurance cover her ???

Did you?

See my powers of reading also extend to then reading the subsequent posts, my own insurance contract and several others I've come across in my line of work which generally provide for a lower level of cover for provisional drivers.

If you're going to be clever, at least try being clever.

keithclancy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Did you?

See my powers of reading also extend to then reading the subsequent posts, my own insurance contract and several others I've come across in my line of work which generally provide for a lower level of cover for provisional drivers.

If you're going to be clever, at least try being clever.

Sounds a bit weird to me that an Insurance company would sell a fully comp insurance policy and then specify different terms in the contract.

E.G.

FULLY COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE

**not full cover if on a learning permit

I think you'd have a field day in court

MarkAnthony

keithclancy wrote: »

Sounds a bit weird to me that an Insurance company would sell a fully comp insurance policy and then specify different terms in the contract.

E.G.

FULLY COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE

**not full cover if on a learning permit

I think you'd have a field day in court

You might, but it's a pretty standard practice. I suspect, but until the OP says otherwise I can't be sure, that the person driving was probably a named driver on the policy rather than the policyholder. I can't imagine they could sell a fully comp policy to a LP holder on the basis that it will only provide 3rd party cover but then this is the insurance industry we're talking about.

In fairness though it makes business sense. I've an Axa policy myself and it has the stipulation ref learner permits.

Breffnigolfer

There has to be some penalty for driving unaccompanied on a Learner's Permit (there's no such thing as a Provisional Licence).

Our roads are dangerous enough without uncertified drivers thinking they have unencumbered access.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

There has to be some penalty for driving unaccompanied on a Learner's Permit (there's no such thing as a Provisional Licence).

Our roads are dangerous enough without uncertified drivers thinking they have unencumbered access.

There is, its just not enforced.

Breffnigolfer

Hendrix Flat Cervix wrote: »

Oh the high horse brigade are in town be very careful with that halo one slip and it becomes a noose. If you have nothing positive to add to the conversation stay out of it.

Are you advocating a fraudulent claim?

MarkAnthony

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

There is, its just not enforced.

That's changing now that the Road Traffic Act 2014 is fully (or almost fully) enacted. Previously it required the guards to go to court, now it's simply a fixed penalty. I'm sure the insurance companies would like to cancel insurance completely when it comes to learner permits but there is no incentive to in 3rd party claims as MIBI would step in (which they pay for) so they may as well pay.

Situations like this however...

Breffnigolfer

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

There is, its just not enforced.

There is a Law but no penalty, at the moment. An unenforced Law is not a penalty.

slimjimmc

keithclancy wrote: »

Sounds a bit weird to me that an Insurance company would sell a fully comp insurance policy and then specify different terms in the contract.

E.G.

FULLY COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE

**not full cover if on a learning permit

I think you'd have a field day in court

I'd think you'd lose. Unlike minimum 3rd party liability, comprehensive cover is optional therefore insurers can stipulate the terms of such cover just like in home insurance, dental cover, etc.

DecTipp

Update: yeah she was fully covered , she received her cheque in the post today , shes delighted , there was no mention about the provisional licence , it depends on the insurance company I suppose !!!