Insurance Claim

[bholleran]

Has anyone on here fought and won or lost an insurance claim against Autoprotect, with regard to wear and tear.

If so which independant engineer did you use and you you recomend them.

Regards

Barry

[Jappo]

May we ask why you wish to know?

[bholleran]

Jappo said:

May we ask why you wish to know?

I am contemplating fighting them, but I suppost I just dont know enough or the chances of success.

I started getting a tapping noise from my engine, which sounded like tappets. After a lot of flaffing about, and setting the tappets etc, it did not appear to be the problem. To cut a long story short it was put into Dream machines with suspected little ends. They listened to the engine and although they could not be sure without stripping the engine. They concluded the same.

The engine has been stripped by Jason at str8 six. The actual diagnosis is that it is a cam follower that has gone.

My car is a 2004 3.6 model, it has done approx 12000 miles. It is fitted with the latest spec cams and followers (not the ones made from cheese as per early models(cold chilled and phosphorous something or other). Out of the 24 folowers only one has gone and has not gone in the normal way. i.e. the tappet gap is correct and shows no sign of wear on the normal surface. However there is a big hole where the top of the cam would contact the follower.

My feeling on this is that if it is already using the latest spec parts (which is what I have been told it will be replaced with), and all the other parts show no signs of abnormal ware, is it right that they are claming ware and tear. (my policy cost £2000 for 2 year but is not the wear and tear policy) As far as I am concerened it is a material defect. if it was wear I would have expected it on all cams and followers.

[Jappo]

bholleran said:

Jappo said:

May we ask why you wish to know?

I am contemplating fighting them, but I suppost I just dont know enough or the chances of success.

I started getting a tapping noise from my engine, which sounded like tappets. After a lot of flaffing about, and setting the tappets etc, it did not appear to be the problem. To cut a long story short it was put into Dream machines with suspected little ends. They listened to the engine and although they could not be sure without stripping the engine. They concluded the same.

The engine has been stripped by Jason at str8 six. The actual diagnosis is that it is a cam follower that has gone.

My car is a 2004 3.6 model, it has done approx 12000 miles. It is fitted with the latest spec cams and followers (not the ones made from cheese as per early models(cold chilled and phosphorous something or other). Out of the 24 folowers only one has gone and has not gone in the normal way. i.e. the tappet gap is correct and shows no sign of wear on the normal surface. However there is a big hole where the top of the cam would contact the follower.

My feeling on this is that if it is already using the latest spec parts (which is what I have been told it will be replaced with), and all the other parts show no signs of abnormal ware, is it right that they are claming ware and tear. (my policy cost £2000 for 2 year but is not the wear and tear policy) As far as I am concerened it is a material defect. if it was wear I would have expected it on all cams and followers.

I'll be interested to see how you get on, from what you write and in your shoes I would regard this as material defect as well. Isn't a lot of the jurisdiction down to how the dealer reports things? my AutoProtect does have the Wear and Tear poloicy yet I hear that there are very tight definitions of what that means too - hope to find out soon

[bholleran]

Jappo said:

bholleran said:

Jappo said:

May we ask why you wish to know?

I'll be interested to see how you get on, from what you write and in your shoes I would regard this as material defect as well. Isn't a lot of the jurisdiction down to how the dealer reports things? my AutoProtect does have the Wear and Tear poloicy yet I hear that there are very tight definitions of what that means too - hope to find out soon

As far as I am aware the Dealer has made every effort to convey Material defect to the engineer. The insurance compay's argument is that it has not suffered a sudden failure. So it makes you think would I have just been better to keep driving it till it broke. I though I was doing the right think in having the car looked at as soon as possible.

[Jappo]

bholleran said:

Jappo said:

bholleran said:

Jappo said:

May we ask why you wish to know?

I'll be interested to see how you get on, from what you write and in your shoes I would regard this as material defect as well. Isn't a lot of the jurisdiction down to how the dealer reports things? my AutoProtect does have the Wear and Tear poloicy yet I hear that there are very tight definitions of what that means too - hope to find out soon

As far as I am aware the Dealer has made every effort to convey Material defect to the engineer. The insurance compay's argument is that it has not suffered a sudden failure. So it makes you think would I have just been better to keep driving it till it broke. I though I was doing the right think in having the car looked at as soon as possible.

If they agree to cover material defect (do they?), and the part is the only one out of many that has suffered in this way, then surely, by anyone's definition, it is material defect. I'd get a lawyer's advice if I were you, especially as you otherwise face a big bill.

[jvr]

opps here we go,they are trying to wiggle out of it again,stand your ground and argue,its one part gone wrong,not all of them.