There was a time many years ago when a company could be paid out on an insurance claim for no reason, other than for being a good and loyal client to the insurance company. Whilst it is possible that even today an insurance company could make a commercial decision when considering a claim from a very large client, many companies are at risk of having claims repudiated.
Although it is not widely known, most contract hire companies have a form of fall back insurance for their contract hire vehicles; this can covers them if the hirer has an accident and their insurer refuses to pay out. Of course the contract hire company will then hold the hirer liable for any loss, but on occasions the hirer is a limited company that subsequently goes into liquidation. If there are no personal guarantees in place then the contract hire company has no means of recovering its money other than to claim on their own insurance. Nowadays contract hire companies are seeing an increasing number of cases where claims are being repudiated. The more serious the accident, the more closely the insurance company will investigate a claim. After all they have to look after their shareholders interests, paying claims where the insurer or driver have not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance, is not looking after the shareholders interests.
Most insurance company's terms and conditions state that the vehicle must comply with the manufacturer's specifications, so the vehicle must not be modified in any way without informing the insurance company. That is why it is advisable to always fit the manufacturers recommended tyres. Employees should be told that under no circumstance should there be any modification made to the engine of their company car. It is not unheard of for employees to have the engine of their company vehicle "chipped" this is a process that changes the way the engine control unit manages the engine and increases the brake horsepower of the vehicle. This would give an insurance company a very good reason to refuse to pay out on a claim, if the vehicle is involved in an accident. In any event it will invalidate the vehicle's warranty.
The vehicle must also be roadworthy to comply with the insurance company's terms and conditions. Contract hire vehicles, as most company car are nowadays, are generally relatively new and regularly serviced. If however a company runs its own vehicles and keeps them for perhaps four or five years, then the condition of the cars needs to be monitored more closely, particularly if they are doing high mileage.
Of course it is not only the lack of maintenance that can cause a vehicle un roadworthy; depending on the circumstances of an accident, having the wrong tyre pressure, where the tyres are unevenly, over or under inflated could cause the insurance company to deem the vehicle to be in an un roadworthy condition. Incorrect tyre pressure can affect road holding, steering, braking and the overall handling of a vehicle and in an accident can often be a contributory factor, particularly in wet conditions. If a vehicle is involved in an accident, it is not unusual for the insurance company to check that the car is roadworthy; it is in their interests to do so. Of course if the circumstances of the accident were such that it is clear that the accident has been caused by another vehicle, this would not be a factor.
If the circumstances of the accident were different, if say your employee's vehicle skidded and crashed into another vehicle or failed to negotiate a bend and crashed, then it is quite possible that the insurer will carry out various checks on the vehicle, to ensure that it was roadworthy. Driving with the incorrect tyre pressure can be very dangerous; it can affect braking, steering, road holding and the general stability of the car. Employee's need to be advised that they must check their tyre pressure on a regular basis, tyres are best checked when they are cold. The incorrect tyre pressure apart from the increased risk of having an accident will also significantly increase your overall fuel bill.
It is also important that tyre wear is regularly monitored to ensure that tyres do not go below the legal limit; with servicing intervals at 18,000 miles and more, one cannot rely on being advised during servicing, that it is necessary to consider changing tyres. Having tyres that are below the legal limit is not maintaining a car in a roadworthy condition. Sometimes only part of the tyre is worn; running the car with the incorrect tyre pressure can cause this.
Many company bosses seem unaware or unconcerned, of the risks posed by of a company car being uninsured due to employees driving whilst in excess of the legal alcohol limit, Insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out on a claim, if the driver is under the influence of alcohol. In spite of all the evidence as to how alcohol affects psychomotor skills, there are a hard core of offenders who believe that this does not apply to them and that their years of drinking and driving has allowed them to master driving whilst drunk. There is some evidence to suggest that this not so much the younger driver but often men in their 50's. 19% of car accidents that result in a death are believed to involve alcohol. Sadly the death is often not the drunk driver but an innocent pedestrian, another motorist or sometimes children. Employers that make it very clear to their employees that they can be instantly dismissed if they drink and drive are not only helping to avoid the company car being involved in an accident without insurance cover but possibly also saving a life.
The position is essentially the same if the employee is driving the company vehicle, whilst under the effects of drugs. Even if an employee is taking a prescription drug rather than recreational drugs, this could affect their ability to drive in a safe manner. Following new legislation, effective from April 2008, it is the company's responsibility to ensure that their employees are safe and this includes, whilst driving on company business
Another risk is when the insurance company believe that a loss has been caused by negligence on the part of the driver. An example of this would be where an employee has left his car, either on the drive or in the road, with the engine running; many do this in the winter so that when they get into the car, it is already heated up. If an employee does this, or leaves the keys in the car when at the petrol station and an opportunistic thief jumps in and drives off, the insurance company is unlikely to pay out.
There are employers that have never checked their employee's driving licences, relying instead on a copy provided by the member of staff. Some photocopy the original and feel that this is satisfactory. Not considering the possibility that whilst in their employment the employee could be convicted for drunk driving and continue driving whilst disqualified. In the event of an accident it is inconceivable that the insurance company would be prepared to meet the claim. New legislation introduced in April 2008, makes the employers responsibility for the safety of their employees and others, including whilst the employee is driving on company business; if there were a death the employers could find themselves prosecuted.
If a company uses a contract hire broker to source their vehicles they could arrange for the broker to regularly check the employee's driving licences; a licence checking service is offered by the more established contract hire and leasing brokers. This is the only way that a company can be sure an employee not been convicted of offences that they are unaware of and cause their insurance to be invalidated. This will also help them to avoid being prosecuted under new legislation introduced in April 2008.
If an insurer rejects a claim and the insured feels that the insurance company is unjustified, the case can be taken to The Financial Ombudsman. There have been many claims that insurance companies have refused to pay that the Financial Ombudsman has ruled should be paid, unfortunately many claimants just accept the insurance company's decision. A client of ours had his car stolen in a carjacking incident, the insurers refused to settle the claim for the Mercedes Benz, valued at more that 60,000. They told the client that they had repeatedly written to him advising him that he must fit tracker to the car, which he had failed to do. However when it was pointed out to the insurance company, following legal advise, that they had not told the client that he would no longer covered in the event of theft, the insurance company settled the claim in full.
The following may help to prevent a claim from being declined by an insurer; company cars should be maintained regularly and tyre pressures need to be measured frequently to ensure pressures are correct and wear is even. It should be made clear to employees that they must not modify their car in any way and that they should not ignore any warning lights that show up. It can help to reduce drink driving amongst employees if they understand that they are likely to loose their job as well as their driving licence, if caught. They should also be advised of the risks of driving if taking any form of drugs, including some prescription drugs. Make employees aware that if they leave the car with the engine running there is a very real risk of it being stolen. Also using a contract hire and leasing broker to check employees driving licences, will avoid the risk of employees driving with undeclared convictions, or whilst disqualified.
Very often when motor insurance claims are declined, the insurer claims that the driver has been negligent. Some employers, perhaps with justification, worry that company car drivers are more prone to be negligent with the company car than they would perhaps with their own vehicle. It seems that negligence is a factor in accident claims not being paid, throughout the world; following an accident in America the insurer refused to pay a claim for accident that happened when the owner of a new motorhome thought the vehicle would drive itself after he had switched to cruise control. This did not stop him taking legal action against the manufacturer of the motorhome claiming that they should have told him that cruise control didn't encompass steering, braking and knowing where to go etc. Common sense does not appear to be a factor in the American legal system; he won his case.
Although it is not widely known, most contract hire companies have a form of fall back insurance for their contract hire vehicles; this can covers them if the hirer has an accident and their insurer refuses to pay out. Of course the contract hire company will then hold the hirer liable for any loss, but on occasions the hirer is a limited company that subsequently goes into liquidation. If there are no personal guarantees in place then the contract hire company has no means of recovering its money other than to claim on their own insurance. Nowadays contract hire companies are seeing an increasing number of cases where claims are being repudiated. The more serious the accident, the more closely the insurance company will investigate a claim. After all they have to look after their shareholders interests, paying claims where the insurer or driver have not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance, is not looking after the shareholders interests.
Most insurance company's terms and conditions state that the vehicle must comply with the manufacturer's specifications, so the vehicle must not be modified in any way without informing the insurance company. That is why it is advisable to always fit the manufacturers recommended tyres. Employees should be told that under no circumstance should there be any modification made to the engine of their company car. It is not unheard of for employees to have the engine of their company vehicle "chipped" this is a process that changes the way the engine control unit manages the engine and increases the brake horsepower of the vehicle. This would give an insurance company a very good reason to refuse to pay out on a claim, if the vehicle is involved in an accident. In any event it will invalidate the vehicle's warranty.
The vehicle must also be roadworthy to comply with the insurance company's terms and conditions. Contract hire vehicles, as most company car are nowadays, are generally relatively new and regularly serviced. If however a company runs its own vehicles and keeps them for perhaps four or five years, then the condition of the cars needs to be monitored more closely, particularly if they are doing high mileage.
Of course it is not only the lack of maintenance that can cause a vehicle un roadworthy; depending on the circumstances of an accident, having the wrong tyre pressure, where the tyres are unevenly, over or under inflated could cause the insurance company to deem the vehicle to be in an un roadworthy condition. Incorrect tyre pressure can affect road holding, steering, braking and the overall handling of a vehicle and in an accident can often be a contributory factor, particularly in wet conditions. If a vehicle is involved in an accident, it is not unusual for the insurance company to check that the car is roadworthy; it is in their interests to do so. Of course if the circumstances of the accident were such that it is clear that the accident has been caused by another vehicle, this would not be a factor.
If the circumstances of the accident were different, if say your employee's vehicle skidded and crashed into another vehicle or failed to negotiate a bend and crashed, then it is quite possible that the insurer will carry out various checks on the vehicle, to ensure that it was roadworthy. Driving with the incorrect tyre pressure can be very dangerous; it can affect braking, steering, road holding and the general stability of the car. Employee's need to be advised that they must check their tyre pressure on a regular basis, tyres are best checked when they are cold. The incorrect tyre pressure apart from the increased risk of having an accident will also significantly increase your overall fuel bill.
It is also important that tyre wear is regularly monitored to ensure that tyres do not go below the legal limit; with servicing intervals at 18,000 miles and more, one cannot rely on being advised during servicing, that it is necessary to consider changing tyres. Having tyres that are below the legal limit is not maintaining a car in a roadworthy condition. Sometimes only part of the tyre is worn; running the car with the incorrect tyre pressure can cause this.
Many company bosses seem unaware or unconcerned, of the risks posed by of a company car being uninsured due to employees driving whilst in excess of the legal alcohol limit, Insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out on a claim, if the driver is under the influence of alcohol. In spite of all the evidence as to how alcohol affects psychomotor skills, there are a hard core of offenders who believe that this does not apply to them and that their years of drinking and driving has allowed them to master driving whilst drunk. There is some evidence to suggest that this not so much the younger driver but often men in their 50's. 19% of car accidents that result in a death are believed to involve alcohol. Sadly the death is often not the drunk driver but an innocent pedestrian, another motorist or sometimes children. Employers that make it very clear to their employees that they can be instantly dismissed if they drink and drive are not only helping to avoid the company car being involved in an accident without insurance cover but possibly also saving a life.
The position is essentially the same if the employee is driving the company vehicle, whilst under the effects of drugs. Even if an employee is taking a prescription drug rather than recreational drugs, this could affect their ability to drive in a safe manner. Following new legislation, effective from April 2008, it is the company's responsibility to ensure that their employees are safe and this includes, whilst driving on company business
Another risk is when the insurance company believe that a loss has been caused by negligence on the part of the driver. An example of this would be where an employee has left his car, either on the drive or in the road, with the engine running; many do this in the winter so that when they get into the car, it is already heated up. If an employee does this, or leaves the keys in the car when at the petrol station and an opportunistic thief jumps in and drives off, the insurance company is unlikely to pay out.
There are employers that have never checked their employee's driving licences, relying instead on a copy provided by the member of staff. Some photocopy the original and feel that this is satisfactory. Not considering the possibility that whilst in their employment the employee could be convicted for drunk driving and continue driving whilst disqualified. In the event of an accident it is inconceivable that the insurance company would be prepared to meet the claim. New legislation introduced in April 2008, makes the employers responsibility for the safety of their employees and others, including whilst the employee is driving on company business; if there were a death the employers could find themselves prosecuted.
If a company uses a contract hire broker to source their vehicles they could arrange for the broker to regularly check the employee's driving licences; a licence checking service is offered by the more established contract hire and leasing brokers. This is the only way that a company can be sure an employee not been convicted of offences that they are unaware of and cause their insurance to be invalidated. This will also help them to avoid being prosecuted under new legislation introduced in April 2008.
If an insurer rejects a claim and the insured feels that the insurance company is unjustified, the case can be taken to The Financial Ombudsman. There have been many claims that insurance companies have refused to pay that the Financial Ombudsman has ruled should be paid, unfortunately many claimants just accept the insurance company's decision. A client of ours had his car stolen in a carjacking incident, the insurers refused to settle the claim for the Mercedes Benz, valued at more that 60,000. They told the client that they had repeatedly written to him advising him that he must fit tracker to the car, which he had failed to do. However when it was pointed out to the insurance company, following legal advise, that they had not told the client that he would no longer covered in the event of theft, the insurance company settled the claim in full.
The following may help to prevent a claim from being declined by an insurer; company cars should be maintained regularly and tyre pressures need to be measured frequently to ensure pressures are correct and wear is even. It should be made clear to employees that they must not modify their car in any way and that they should not ignore any warning lights that show up. It can help to reduce drink driving amongst employees if they understand that they are likely to loose their job as well as their driving licence, if caught. They should also be advised of the risks of driving if taking any form of drugs, including some prescription drugs. Make employees aware that if they leave the car with the engine running there is a very real risk of it being stolen. Also using a contract hire and leasing broker to check employees driving licences, will avoid the risk of employees driving with undeclared convictions, or whilst disqualified.
Very often when motor insurance claims are declined, the insurer claims that the driver has been negligent. Some employers, perhaps with justification, worry that company car drivers are more prone to be negligent with the company car than they would perhaps with their own vehicle. It seems that negligence is a factor in accident claims not being paid, throughout the world; following an accident in America the insurer refused to pay a claim for accident that happened when the owner of a new motorhome thought the vehicle would drive itself after he had switched to cruise control. This did not stop him taking legal action against the manufacturer of the motorhome claiming that they should have told him that cruise control didn't encompass steering, braking and knowing where to go etc. Common sense does not appear to be a factor in the American legal system; he won his case.
About the Author:
For more information about contract hire, lease purchase, finance lease or vehicle hire purchase in the UK please contact Bowater Price plc http://www.bowaterprice.com Tel - 01494 536 536.
No comments:
Post a Comment