Hi guys,
I'll be hypothetical so not to fall foul of the rules.
Lets suggest that a diesel powered german prestige car is covered by a warranty from a leading warranty provider. The car in question is not high mileage - infact, it's below average and thus within the mileage limits in force on the policy.
The car develops a starting issue and is sent to the main dealer. The dealer diagnoses the problem as a faulty 'Pre supply fuel pump'. The dealer calls the warranty company, who decline to pay stating the part is not covered.
Here is an extract from the policy:
'FUEL SYSTEM
Mechanical and electrical fuel pumps, airflow meter, injectors (including injector cooling system), overrun cut-off valve, pressure regulator, sensors, throttle body, fuel gauge and tank sender unit. D.I.S. unit and controls, injection pump, injectors, glow plugs, electromagnetic cut-off.'
Note plural of 'fuel pumps'. Suggesting more than one. Ie, both fitted to the car. Warranty company claims 'Oh, that only refers to petrol cars'. No mention of that can be found in the policy.
In your opinion, are they correct to reject a claim on those grounds?
|
No they are not correct IMHO but it might be interesting to see figures for the %age of claims paid as a proportion of claims submitted. I have never seen a good word, here at least, on the benefits of these policies ie not many satisfied customers and loads of queries about claim rejections on "Technicalities"
|
|
|
.. In your opinion, are they correct to reject a claim on those grounds?
accepting your tale as the whole truth, and without hearing the other side, i would say they are not correct to reject a claim.
i hope for your sake that the company in question is at least as good and honest as the one advertised on the left here who have a very clear "mission statement" and who proudly declare:
"..... offer warranties that are worth the paper they are written on .. we stand by what we say. With no hidden get out clauses, .... the only company that offers you plain and honest cover (as approved by the Plain English Campaign). ...... Our business depends on your recommendation, so we will be doing everything within our power to ensure that you are delighted. Other warranty companies are more interested in minimising the costs that their dealer partner might incur as a result of your claim - with Warranty Direct this never happens. We do not deal with dealers and our responsibility is solely to you. Most warranty companies also use the hapless garage service receptionist as their first line of defense - better for that person to give you the bad news of a rejected claim. We are different, in the unlikely event that you are unhappy with our decision, or if any clarification is required, you have full access to our engineers. .... .."
so if your warranty provider is as good as or better than that, you should be okay.
|
These companies are notorious for trying to wriggle out of claims.
I note they state 'fuel pumps' (not 'petrol' pumps) - they also go on to mention glow plugs (which are only fitted to Diesel engines) in that section, so I think it is fair to assume that the whole section refers to both petrol and Diesel engines.
One getout they often use (when I used to deal with them from a repairers perspective) is that they are 'breakdown' warranties - i.e. the part has to completely fail and the car has to physcially stop and need recovery. Poor starting due to weak delivery from the lift pump might not be covered on that basis. But the Devil's in the detail.
|
|
Well technically speaking the car did break down - it was immobile for at least a few hours, it completely failed to start.
|
Dealer now says warranty company have agreed 'in principle' to the replacement of the pump.
How truely bizarre.
|
Dealer now says warranty company have agreed 'in principle' to the replacement of the pump. How truely bizarre.
not at all. that is how most of them are alleged or perceived to operate: the first rule is find a reason to refuse. if punter persists or seems to know his/her stuff, then may be start to offer some contribution. if ther is no room to wriggle out, then only settle in full.
and indeed, that is also the implied messge that i get from the honest people on the left who stress how they are unique and how they differ from the rest of the industry.
( i.m.o. the motor insurance industry used to have a reputation like that at one time but seem to have cleaned up their act in recent years due to pressure from the fsa and ombudsman regulators.)
|
|
|
|
I think that rejecting the claim is beyond outrageous, and the reason given is clearly ridiculous - is it simply the case that they reject *all* claims in the first place, hoping that you'll ago away, and maybe you simply need to push a bit harder?
Presumeably the repair has to be done anyway, so get it done and use moneyclaimonline to get the money back.
|
The problem with warranty companies is the very business model they are based upon.
A: income is the fixed sum paid per policy
B: costs are claims paid per policy
Profit (and they are there to make a profit) is = A - B
To ensure they always make money A: would be too high and no one would buy it,
So guess were the profit fine tuning comes from.
The idea of rejecting *every* claim up front is probably a good one, if 5% accept that - its a good ploy to boost profit.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
|
|
