Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Car stolen = are we insured
Do we have a claim against our insurers? Our case was stolen by a person posing as a buyer. My husband was standing by the car at the time, showing it to the buyer. The buyer asked my husband to check the reversing car sensors, and as he walked behind the vehicle, the 'buyer' slammed the door and drove off. Police informed, car not traced, case closed. Our insurers are claiming we cannot claim ANYTHING - it was a £20k car. I have a summary of cover, which states no mention of this clause which is actually buried deep in the policy. Surely they owe a duty of care to make policy holders aware of such a thing? Any help / courses of action welcome. We ahve reported the case to The Financial Ombudsman.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pollyl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.You state that your insurance co. has refused the claim based on the clause: 'if someone steals the car through fraud or trickery whilst posing as a buyer'.
There was no fraud involved in the theft of the vehicle, and the dictionary definition of trickery is ‘an act or the practice of deceiving or cheating’. No deception was involved in the theft of the car and I do not see any cheating – only theft. Therefore I would expect the Ombudsman to rule in your favour on this point.
However all insurance polices would expect you to take reasonable care of the vehicle – that is why a number of insurers refuse to pay out when someone leaves the keys in the ignition while paying for petrol.
But I do not see anything unreasonable in what your husband did. And therefore I still expect the Ombudsman to rule in your favour.
I would be very grateful if you would post the result of the Ombudsman’s ruling, once made.
There was no fraud involved in the theft of the vehicle, and the dictionary definition of trickery is ‘an act or the practice of deceiving or cheating’. No deception was involved in the theft of the car and I do not see any cheating – only theft. Therefore I would expect the Ombudsman to rule in your favour on this point.
However all insurance polices would expect you to take reasonable care of the vehicle – that is why a number of insurers refuse to pay out when someone leaves the keys in the ignition while paying for petrol.
But I do not see anything unreasonable in what your husband did. And therefore I still expect the Ombudsman to rule in your favour.
I would be very grateful if you would post the result of the Ombudsman’s ruling, once made.
Fraud and trickery is reliant upon the good faith of the victim.
I am not advocating that the clause should not be inspected, tested and adjudicated by the Ombudsman but rather that the language used in the clause (rightly or not) does fit the described scenario i.e. somebody posing as a buyer is acting in a fraudulent manner and to persuade the seller to exit their car under false pretences (i.e. to leave them with the keys and in control) is "trickery", therefore the car was stolen through fraud AND trickery.
I am not advocating that the clause should not be inspected, tested and adjudicated by the Ombudsman but rather that the language used in the clause (rightly or not) does fit the described scenario i.e. somebody posing as a buyer is acting in a fraudulent manner and to persuade the seller to exit their car under false pretences (i.e. to leave them with the keys and in control) is "trickery", therefore the car was stolen through fraud AND trickery.
It is awful. And I think it's morally wrong that such a clause exists. However, I cannot comprehend how anyone would say that "wasn't fraud". It couldn't be more fraudulent if it tried! Someone posing as a buyer in order to find opportunity to steal the car is as "fraud" as it gets. The only way it's not fraud is if he genuinely was there to buy the car and then took an opportunistic impulse to steal it out of the blue.