a year ago my car was parked in a public car park. During the night, unknown persons had stolen a car, parked it next to mine, and set it alight. My car was a right off, but my insurers would not pay me a penny because they said that it wasn't actually my car that had set alight! The police could not trace the owner's of the stolen vehicle (which I found strange). To this day I am still baffled as to why they would not accept my claim. Was this right? I had third party,fire and theft insurance.
2006-12-06 20:55:09 · 16 answers · asked by Somer 4 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Insurance & Registration
bostonian-I did make a fuss, but as I said, because the police could not trace the owners of the other car (they even had the registration no.) my insurers would not pay out. I was told that if someone was prosecuted for the car theft, then my insurer's would persue a claim against the car owner's insurer's. I was even threatened with court if I did not pay up the annual insurance payment!! Avoid DIRECT LINE.
2006-12-06 22:29:51 · update #1
Your car was damaged by fire and therefore the claim is good.
If the car had been next to a building which started buring they would have paid that.
Send a letter of complaint to the claims manager, advise them that you intend to involve the FSA if you dont have a satisfactory outcome
2006-12-06 21:01:28 · answer #1 · answered by Nimbus 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hiya, this claim will only be covered on your own insurance if you have comprehensive cover. TPFT will not cover damage caused by another parties vehicle to yours. The fire element is cover for your vehicle being vandalised and set alight.
In relation to the thief being court this is also correct. Your own insurers will still not accept a claim if the thief is caught, The only option you have is if the thief is caught you can then claim off the insurers of the stolen vehicle as a Third Party. As it stands at the moment both yourself and the stolen vehicle owners are both innocent victims of the thief and as the stolen vehicle's insurers have no one to recover they costs off then they have no obligation to meet your claim
2006-12-07 08:42:03 · answer #2 · answered by Steve 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of the answers here show no one really read your question. Guys, his car wasn't stolen. A stolen car was parked next to his and burned.
Your fire insurance on your policy wouldn't cover your car since your car was set on fire. The owner of the vehicle, even if the police could find them, won't owe you any damages since they didn't burn their own stolen car. So it looks like you don't have anything coming with the insurance you had in place.
You might ask them for something in written form as to why they won't cover, and discuss it with an attorney if you'd like.
2006-12-06 21:37:06 · answer #3 · answered by oklatom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is NOT right! I've heard weak excuses for an insurance company to refuse a claim but that one takes the cake.
Contact an attorney or the insurance ombudsman. Hopefully there is no statute of limitations involved. You should have pursued this at the time; why have you waited a year??
2006-12-06 22:09:35 · answer #4 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have though it would be covered for fire damage (if it caught light) but not necessarily malicious damage. if yours was burnt out who's to say which car was set alight first! take your case to the insurance ombudsmen or a solicitor (or watchdog). it would be worth checking the small print on your policy and fight the wording.
some cars are owned by "ghost" owners that do not exist, usually associated with criminals
2006-12-06 21:24:28 · answer #5 · answered by elloboy33 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in the states I believe that would be covered under comprehensive, which covers fire damage to the vehicle. Your policy must have a specific language about the fire coverage that you vehicle has to be set on fire directly. I find that odd, but not having seen your contract, I'm not sure if they're right or not. Sorry.
2006-12-06 23:23:25 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If your car was only damaged by the radiant heat (and didn't itself catch light) then they are correct, I'm afraid.
It would be the same as if the car had rammed into yours - with third party cover, they wouldn't pay out.
You might like to see about the "uninsured drivers" scheme though - other than that, you'd need to find the owner of the stolen car
2006-12-06 21:01:43 · answer #7 · answered by viking_raider_2005 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There may be a clause in the very fine print of your cover that excludes "radiant heat" - that sometimes happens for this very reason. Ask the insurers for evidence as to which clause they are relying on. They have to provide it.
Mind you, it's not unknown for some dubious insurers to try it on and hope you'll go away! So rumour has it.
2006-12-06 21:25:31 · answer #8 · answered by champer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Third party fire and theft should of covered it mate...you may be best to send a complaint to your insurance company - include the police log number and keep a copy of the letter you send...
i think this is the website of the financial regulator, if you have a greivance
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
or
www.fsa.gov.uk
contact your insurance company and ask who you should contact they will have a complaints department and they have t o give you this information!
2006-12-06 21:05:42 · answer #9 · answered by cinderfella 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the stolen vehicle (veh one million) is roofed below the great coverage the subsequent automobiles are may well be paid below the criminal accountability coverage as much as the cut back of the coverage, consequently the 9 autos might could submit there property injury and may well be paid proportionatly to there losses as adversarial to 9 way chop up. yet in the previous the coverage enterprise will pay all and sundry they could get carry of a launch of criminal accountability from all events to guard the insured. or each physique is going to courtroom. terrific way is to have your guy or woman service shield it and subrogate to the universal coverage. enable them to combat the conflict that's why we pay costs
2016-10-17 22:36:51 · answer #10 · answered by woodworth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋