I read about an incident that we all can learn from when dealing with vehicle insurers. A person with comprehensive insurance on their car unfortunately had it vandalized on the street during the night in front of their house. The vehicle insurance company said that because the car was not broken into, and because they did not know who was responsible for the damage (!?) the incident would be treated as accidental damage. Further, because the insured driver was under 25 years old, there was an additional £250 charge for any accidental damage. To put it in other words, the vehicle insurance company was treating it as though the owner of the vehicle had driven into a wall, and charged them as such.
A few things jump out at me as I read this. Of course, the vehicle insurance company does not want to pay out any money. And they really don't want to pay any money if they know they won't get any of it back by increasing the premiums as is the case. Comprehensive premiums are generally based on the replacement value of the car, and the region. So we shouldn't ever be amazed if they don't want to pay us anything. The second thing to remember however is that they have lots of experience in legally avoiding their obligation to pay their clients, and the clients generally have no experience whatever in getting them to fork over the dough. When we make an insurance claim, it is more often than not the first time, or at least the first time with this particular insurer. We need to grasp the fact that they always have caveats to put the claim in a special category allowing them to treat it as they please.
Vehicle insurers are not the only ones to do this. I had a leak in the upstairs bathroom in a rented house a few years back. This caused a stain which needed repainting downstairs. I called the insurer to make a claim but they asked me to show them the invoice for having had the room painted initially. I asked them why launch x431 pro mini. They maintained that I had to prove that I was damaged financially in order for them to reimburse me anything, and if I did not pay anything to have the house painted initially, then I was not damaged financially. According to their logic, the person who originally painted the room was the one who was damaged, and therefore they did not have to reimburse me. Talk about convoluted reasoning! They must have had a good laugh when they thought that one up autel maxisys ms906.
What does all of this mean? Basically, that for the most part your insurance policy is of little value. Get over it. Buy insurance to protect yourself against a disaster. Where car insurance is concerned, this means public liability and nothing else that is not required by law. The purpose of insurance is to forsee the worst. Take the money you save and put it into your new car fund.
Greg Peters is a freelance author living in the south of England with his wife and two children.Related Links
