My new car insurance policy has a loss or damage exclusion clause which i have'nt heard of before.
Along with the usual exclusions , War,nuclear, terrorism there is a clause
"Electronic computer or computer software breakdowns,faults or failures"
So presumably if your airbag unexpectantly deploys due to electronic malfunction and you crash the car you cant claim. Must include electronic steering assistance,fly by wire throttle,abs,semi-auto gearbox ......
|
I would find a new insurance company pronto! or let them knoe tahat such a clause is not tenable for you perhaps they will strike it
¬R
|
|
|
|
All the clause is saying is they won't pay for repairs to the failed electronic equipment. They will still pay for the damage to your car, assuming you have comprehensive cover, and any Third Party damage. This clause has been around for a while. It was introduced over Y2K.
|
|
|
|
I expect Chris M is quite correct at the proposal stage, but if you actually have a problem due to these things? Any experiences?
|
|
|
|
Which Insurance Company, in case I have access to the document ?
|
|
ah, Zurich Insurance perchance ?
|
|
|
|
|
The company is MMA.
|
Used to be Norman Insurance of Reading.
I don`t have a copy of the policy wording, but I believe theirs to be fairly generic
In which case, that exclusion is nothing at all to do with accidents. It is to exclude the same thing as if, for example, it said "claims for a blown engine are exluded".
It is because those items would be better or more appropriately covered by a maintenance type insurance policy.
If the breaking/failing of that electrical/computer equipment occasioned an accident, then that would be covered as normal, although the actual failed equipment would not be.
As I say, read it as if they were talking about a blown engine, it may make more sense.
|
happy to help.
However, please remember if you have *any* serious doubt you should clarify it in writing with an underwriter at Norman.
If you have problems in an accident, they won't care what I said, but they will care what their own underwriter said.
This should be the process for anybody in all areas of doubt over insurance. Write to them and ask for clarification.
In this case I don't believe it to be neccessary, but that is your call.
On another point, since I saw it somewhere else this morning, I see there is still this misunderstanding over what is a "Comprehensive" Motor Policy. This term is to all intents and purposes meaningless. Whilst it normally means AD,TP, F&T, and the "usual" extensions, it is not neccessarily so. It has no relation to driving restrictions, what other cars you may drive, glass cover, excess levels, class of usage or anything else for that matter.
When you get insurance, make sure that you know what it means in your case....
perhaps this will help some. Things you should know, and never assume...
What cover do I have (Use, AD, TP, F&T, Excess for each) ?
What can I use my car for (SD&P, Business etc) ?
What is the effect of each type of claim or number of claims on my NCD ?
Who can drive my car and what is the cover when they are driving it and/or when they have parked it and left it unattended. (insurance, excess) ?
What can they use it for ? (SD&P, Business etc) ?
Are there any age or experience restrictions (age, livcence for how long) ?
What other cars can I drive ? (ownership, cover, circumstances)
What glass cover do I have (excess, total amount, effect on bonus in event of claim)
Ditto Rugs and Personal Effects
Is there any restriction on parking (garage, not overnight etc) ?
Are there any annual mileage restrictions ? What happens if I exceed them ?
There are many more, but if you know that lot, you're probably ok.
|
|
|
|
Cheers Mark
Glad there is someone who understands legal jargon !
|
|
|
It's very easy just to assume youre covered for anything when taking out comprehensive cover but as you say this often varys greatly between insurance companies. I will certainly ask a few more questions in future just to be sure the policy is right for me.
I would be grateful for youre advice on another insurance matter. My brother is currently making a claim against the ambulance service insurers (Zurich).He was involved in a accident at a crossroads which is controlled by traffic lights.
The ambulance was on a call and went thru a red light on the wrong side of the road,unfortunately my brother was crossing the junction (on a green light) and was hit by the ambulance. The junction has a totally blind corner so neither the ambulance or my brother had a chance to see each other or even brake (the road was also wet).The RAC legal assist are dealing with the claim and have been very good so far. So far Zurich have said my brother is 100% liable because the ambulance was "empowered" to cross the junction and that all other traffic had stopped to allow the ambulance to cross so should have my brother. But the other traffic had stopped because they were all on red lights ( a filter light was on in my brothers direction).
RAC seem to think this will end up 50/50 so my brother will only get half the value of is car (tpft cover). Do you have any experience of such incidents,if so whats the normal outcome ?
Any advice,thoughts appreiciated
|
|
|
Steve G,
I would be interested to see their legal basis for an ambulance being 'empowered' to cross a red light.
The reason I say this is that my father drove fire appliances for 28 years and he always said that although they went through red lights he could still be prosecuted as they strictly had no legal right to do so. He retired some years ago but I would be surprised if the law has changed that much.
Personally I think that if Zurich are going to insure emergency vehicles they should accept these incidents are part of the risk and pay up. Good luck!!
|
|
|
do they accept that your brother had a green light, or is this disputed too ?
M.
|
|
|
|
Yes they have acknowledged my brother was on a green light.
|
|
|
