By Harvey Williams
For many years perhaps right up until the Thatcher years of the 1980s attitudes in business and towards insurance companies in particular, were different; clients tended to remain with the same insurance company for years and there was considerably less "shopping around" than there is today. In turn the insurance company's approach to the client was different; if you were a loyal client that had been with the company for years they would on occasions consider paying a claim that they might have otherwise rejected. In today's more commercial world, for an Insurance company to pay a claim, where they believe they have grounds for declining it, the claimant would need to be a very sizeable client, representing a considerable amount of profitability to the company, loyalty is unlikely to play a part in the decision.
When a vehicle is on contract hire, the contract hire company owns the vehicle but the hirer insures it. Therefore when an insurance company refuses to pay a claim, the hirer becomes responsible and contract hire companies are seeing this happen more frequently. In the case of minor accidents, insurance companies rarely look too closely at the circumstances. However in the event of a serious accident, it makes very sound financial sense for the insurance company to examine the circumstances of the accident and take a close look at the driver. An insurance company is answerable to its shareholders and its shareholders would not appreciate it paying out claims when it has good grounds for refusing to do so.
Many companies with company cars are not aware that the motor insurer's terms and condition state that a vehicle must not be modified in any way, without advising them of the changes. It is for this reason safer to fit the manufacturer's recommended tyres, with the correct speed rating. It is important that employees understand that they must not change or modify their company vehicle in any way, in order not to run the risk of invalidating the insurance. Some employers have discovered, following an accident, that an employee has done what is know as "chip" the company vehicle's engine. This has the effect of increasing the car's horsepower. The insurer will often, with justification, refuse to pay out a claim, because the car is more powerful than the vehicle they understood they were insuring. It also causes another problem in that it can invalidate the car's warranty. In this eventuality it could cause the contract hire or leasing company to make a claim against the hirer; if the vehicle were for example on two years contract hire, then the hirer would be returning the vehicle without its third year warranty.
It is important to remember that an insurer requires the insured to keep a vehicle in a roadworthy condition. A high proportion of company cars are on contract hire; they are serviced regularly and are generally under warranty. Any faults or potential faults are normally rectified, by the dealership under the manufacturer's warranty, when the vehicle is in for its service. Some companies purchase and keep their company cars for up to 4 or 5 years. Ensuring that the vehicle is always in a roadworthy condition is much more difficult under these circumstances, particularly if the mileage is high.
It is not only lack of maintenance that can cause a vehicle to be un roadworthy, it can often be a failing on the part of the driver; incorrect tyre pressure is the most common reason. Driving with the tyres incorrectly inflated can be very dangerous, particularly if the roads are wet. If one of the company vehicles is in an accident and the accident is of a serious nature, then the insurance company will normally check the vehicle's roadworthiness. Of course if another motorist were clearly at fault then the insurer would have no reason to check the condition of the vehicle.
If an accident happens under different circumstances, for example where an employee's car crashes on a bend or skids out of control and causes the accident, then it is quite reasonable that the insurance company will want to ensure that the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition. Incorrect tyre pressure is one of the most common causes of newer cars being un- roadworthy. Employers should advise their employees that tyre pressures need to be checked regularly. This is best done in the morning whilst the tyres are still cold. Another good reason for ensuring that tyre pressures are correct is that it can significantly reduce the company's fuel bill.
It is also important that tyre wear is regularly monitored to ensure that tyres do not go below the legal limit; with servicing intervals at 18,000 miles and more, one cannot rely on being advised during servicing, that it is necessary to consider changing tyres. Having tyres that are below the legal limit is not maintaining a car in a roadworthy condition. Sometimes only part of the tyre is worn; running the car with the incorrect tyre pressure can cause this.
A risk to the company's insurance cover that is often overlooked by companies is when employees drive their company cars whilst having exceeded the legal limit of alcohol consumption. The risk is higher outside of office hours, when employees stop for a drink on their way home, or at weekends. Whilst it may be outside office hours, it is still the company's vehicle and insurance. It was revealed in a study in 1998 that in 10% of motorcycle accidents where there was a fatality and 19% of fatal car accidents, alcohol was involved. It seems extraordinary that even today with all the increased publicity, there are drivers who believe their driving skills are enhanced following alcohol consumption.
Companies should also be aware that if an employee drives his company car and has an accident whilst under the influence of drugs, the company could also find itself without insurance. Unfortunately there are also prescription drugs that can affect the ability to drive safely. It is however an employer's responsibility to ensure the safety of its employees; it may be safer for an employee to ask its employees to advise them if they are taking a medicine that may affect their driving ability, after all many drugs companies advise the user not to operate machinery, or drive whilst taking a particular medication.
Another risk is when the insurance company believe that a loss has been caused by negligence on the part of the driver. An example of this would be where an employee has left his car, either on the drive or in the road, with the engine running; many do this in the winter so that when they get into the car, it is already heated up. If an employee does this, or leaves the keys in the car when at the petrol station and an opportunistic thief jumps in and drives off, the insurance company is unlikely to pay out.
If the company vehicles are to be insured whilst on the road, the driver must have a valid driving licence. There are many employers that believe that taking a photocopy of an employee's driving licence is all that is necessary. Some have never seen the original and accept a photocopy provided by the employee, only to discover following an accident, that the employee had been previously disqualified.
If a company's vehicles are sourced through a broker, the larger and well established contract hire brokers are able to offer a service where they regularly check the employee's driving licences. They can be checked when they are first employed and then at regular intervals, to make sure there are no new convictions. Once employees are aware this system is in place they are much more likely to come forward and declare a new conviction. Apart from protecting the company as far as it's insurance is concerned; it also affords it protection from prosecution under the new legislation.
If an insurer rejects a claim, it does not necessarily follow that they have acted correctly. There have been many such decisions by insurance companies, which have subsequently been overturned by the Financial Ombudsman, the body that deals with disputes or complaints against insurance companies. In a case that involved one of our clients, the insurance company refused to settle a claim in excess of 60,000 following a car jacking. They justified this because the vehicle did not have tracker fitted, in spite of the fact that they had told the client on many occasions that it was a requirement. The client, who disagreed with the insurer's decision, called in an expert. The expert said that whilst the insurer had told the client he must have Tracker fitted, they had not written to the client and told him they were no longer providing cover. The expert's views were made known to the company and the claim was settled in full, soon after.
In summary it can help to avoid claims being declined by observing the following: Ensure that the vehicle is properly and regularly maintained; Tyre pressures should be checked at least every two weeks, preferably when cold; No modifications should be made to a vehicle, without informing the insurance company; Drivers must take action if a warning light is illuminated; Employees should be warned of the dangers of driving whilst in excess of the legal limit for alcohol consumption; Drugs, including prescription drugs, can affect a driver's ability to drive safely. Drug testing is now used by some companies, up to 80% of large US companies test for drugs, although there are concerns regarding false positives; Vehicles should never be left unattended, with the engine running; Use one of the specialist companies or a contract hire broker to regularly check employee's driving licences. Observing these points will at least help to avoid motor insurance claims being repudiated
Very often when motor insurance claims are declined, the insurer claims that the driver has been negligent. Some employers, perhaps with justification, worry that company car drivers are more prone to be negligent with the company car than they would perhaps with their own vehicle. It seems that negligence is a factor in accident claims not being paid, throughout the world; following an accident in America the insurer refused to pay a claim for accident that happened when the owner of a new motorhome thought the vehicle would drive itself after he had switched to cruise control. This did not stop him taking legal action against the manufacturer of the motorhome claiming that they should have told him that cruise control didn't encompass steering, braking and knowing where to go etc. Common sense does not appear to be a factor in the American legal system; he won his case.
About the Author:
For more information about contract hire, lease purchase, finance lease or vehicle hire purchase in the UK please contact Bowater Price plc http://www.bowaterprice.com Tel - 01494 536 536.
