Discussion
This is aimed @ Iain really, as its to do with the Mazda Rotary Club regarding this thread www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forums/sho do you make of it? sounds like a really aweful decision by the insurance company (un-named), who i am also insured by!!!!
may change once my policy is up.
may change once my policy is up.
Edited by _Batty_ on Friday 28th July 08:47
everybody read the attatched article, the insurance company mentioned are utter bastards!!! they pissed me about for months and offerred me shite money for my old car, (i was stationart and got rammed from behind! with witness!! all they were intersted in was getting to claim compensation, which i didnt as i was fine! And i hate thoose scum on the "where theres a blame theres a claim adverts!!!!!!"
PLEASE ALL READ THE ARTICLE!!!!!
PLEASE ALL READ THE ARTICLE!!!!!
That looks really nasty - assume car can't be saved?
I've been warned about Highway in the past - apparently it's all true! If you want to take things further the FSA would expect you to complain to the insurer first. However, the whole reason the FSA was introduced was to make insurance of any kind more transparent and easier to deal with (especially for private individuals). Accordingly, there are strict and tight guidelines regarding dealing with queries and complaints - get in touch with the FSA and ask for their advice. Goes without saying that whenever you deal with your insurers (or the FSA), get names, numbers and make timed and dated records of your conversations. It's a bit anal, but if it works...
Playing Devil's Advocate, of course they don't want to pay out! However, they've assessed the risk that you and your car represent, loaded your premium because of the mods and made you an offer of cover which they were willing to abide by. What's their reason for declining? Are they contending that the mechanical failure was exacerbated by your track/strip use? Did you mod the car yourself? If you used a pro, can they confirm all of the mods on your car and that you didn't have Nitrous?
Lastly, remember that if you want the car back you'll have to withdraw the claim. If you accept a settlement, the car's theirs to recover as much money as they can.
I hope you get satisfaction - sooner rather than later!
I've been warned about Highway in the past - apparently it's all true! If you want to take things further the FSA would expect you to complain to the insurer first. However, the whole reason the FSA was introduced was to make insurance of any kind more transparent and easier to deal with (especially for private individuals). Accordingly, there are strict and tight guidelines regarding dealing with queries and complaints - get in touch with the FSA and ask for their advice. Goes without saying that whenever you deal with your insurers (or the FSA), get names, numbers and make timed and dated records of your conversations. It's a bit anal, but if it works...
Playing Devil's Advocate, of course they don't want to pay out! However, they've assessed the risk that you and your car represent, loaded your premium because of the mods and made you an offer of cover which they were willing to abide by. What's their reason for declining? Are they contending that the mechanical failure was exacerbated by your track/strip use? Did you mod the car yourself? If you used a pro, can they confirm all of the mods on your car and that you didn't have Nitrous?
Lastly, remember that if you want the car back you'll have to withdraw the claim. If you accept a settlement, the car's theirs to recover as much money as they can.
I hope you get satisfaction - sooner rather than later!
Animal said:
....Playing Devil's Advocate, of course they don't want to pay out! However, they've assessed the risk that you and your car represent, loaded your premium because of the mods and made you an offer of cover which they were willing to abide by. What's their reason for declining?
Almost all insurance policies have exclusions for "racing and timed events" or somesuch.
This does not just mean that you are not covered for these, but that taking part in one contravenes the conditions of your policy and invalidates the whole policy, not just the times when you are competing.
Animal said:
Are they contending that the mechanical failure was exacerbated by your track/strip use?....
As far as I can see, they are declining on the grounds of mechanical failure. They are not saying that track/strip is anything to do with said failure. They don't need to establish the cause.
DocJock said:
As far as I can see, they are declining on the grounds of mechanical failure. They are not saying that track/strip is anything to do with said failure. They don't need to establish the cause.
Trouble is, most insurance companies will still pay out for consequential loss...i.e. motorway tyre blow-out, they won't pay for the tyre but will pay for the bodywork repairs after you hit the armco at 70mph. Not sure about Highway's small print. The other thing is the 'T-piece' the mechanics report mentions. The grey area here is do they have to PROVE the driver was using / has used NOS, or is the mere presence of something capable of supporting NOS use sufficient to deny a claim. I would suggest the former, but clearly they think otherwise.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff