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.
Contract hire companies nowadays see many cases where insurers have refused to pay out on claims following accidents. Naturally the larger a claim the more closely an insurance company will scrutinise it; if one of your company vehicles has a minor accident it does not make financial sense for the insurer to spend too much time on the claim. If however it is a major accident there are very sound commercial reasons why the insurance company will closely examine all aspects of the claim and the circumstances surrounding it. An Insurance company's obligation is to its shareholders, which doesn't include paying out on claims, if they can find good reason to invalidate it.
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.
The vehicle must also be roadworthy to comply with the insurance company's terms and conditions. Contract hire vehicles, as most company car are nowadays, are generally relatively new and regularly serviced. If however a company runs its own vehicles and keeps them for perhaps four or five years, then the condition of the cars needs to be monitored more closely, particularly if they are doing high mileage.
There are however, apart from lack of maintenance, many things that can cause a car to be un-roadworthy; if one of your company vehicles is in an accident and it is found to have the wrong tyre pressures, with the tyres under, over or unevenly inflated this could be a serious problem. It would of course depend on the circumstances of the accident; if another vehicle drove into the rear of an employee's stationary car, it could hardly be considered a factor and it is very unlikely under these circumstances that the insurer would check the car's roadworthiness; they would have no reason to do so.
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.
Company cars should have their tyres checked on a regular basis to ensure that wear is within the legal limit. In the past servicing was carried out on average every 12,000 miles, now manufacturers have extended the intervals and it can even be 20,000 miles. Clearly with intervals this long the company cannot rely on the serving department advising them when tyres have insufficient or uneven wear. Driving the vehicle with the wrong tyre pressure can cause uneven wear.
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.
Negligence is another area where an insurance company will often refuse to pay out. This is quite understandable because when an insurance company agrees to take on a risk, they will not have allowed for the risk of an opportunistic thief taking advantage of a driver's negligence; where they leave their keys in the car whilst they pay for their petrol, or if they leave it parked on the road, or on their drive with the engine running. In spite of the risks, many company car drivers do this in the winter, so that the heating works as soon as they get into the car. Many have found themselves having to explain to their employer, that the car was gone when they came out of their house.
There are employers that have never checked their employee's driving licences, relying instead on a copy provided by the member of staff. Some photocopy the original and feel that this is satisfactory. Not considering the possibility that whilst in their employment the employee could be convicted for drunk driving and continue driving whilst disqualified. In the event of an accident it is inconceivable that the insurance company would be prepared to meet the claim. New legislation introduced in April 2008, makes the employers responsibility for the safety of their employees and others, including whilst the employee is driving on company business; if there were a death the employers could find themselves prosecuted.
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.
To summarise, it is important to ensure that vehicles are properly maintained and that tyres are regularly checked for wear and the pressures should be checked ideally every two weeks. Employees should be prohibited from making any modification to their company vehicle and should heed any warning lights that come up on the screen of their vehicle. They should also be warned about driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs and encouraged to speak to the company if they are on any type of medication that may affect their ability to drive safely. Vehicles should not be started and left to warm up on a cold day and keys should not be left in the car whilst in a petrol station or whilst quickly popping into the shops. Opportunistic thieves only take seconds to steal a car. Speak to a contract hire broker, about licence checking, it is vital that all companies have these checks carried out. The aforementioned will at least go some way, to avoiding a situation where an insurer refuses to pay out on a claim.
Negligence on the part of the driver can often be the cause of an insurer declining a claim. The was a case reported in America where a gentleman having purchased a motor home, set off on a trip and once on the open road, engaged cruise control and left the controls to make a drink. His understanding of cruise control was that the vehicle drove on its own. Of course the insurance company declined to pay for the subsequent damage, after the vehicle crashed, however he was able to successfully sue the motor home manufacturer, claiming that they should have told him that cruise control doesn't drive the vehicle for you.
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.
