Bumped cars
Dear Insurers, do you ever stop taking the Piss out of people? who are your legal teams that advise of the practices you carry out? commercial bullying and constantly trying to avoid paying out down to the last penny.
Recovery and Storage Charges.
Example. Your insured / Third party to you, elects to use their own repairer.
The view the law system takes.
This is the flow of contract law
Should the owner of the vehicle require “repairs” it is “reasonable” for them to seek the services of a repairer to do so. Should it then transpire that the vehicle is “unroadworthy” “unsafe” “insecure”, it is a “reasonable” action for the repairer to take the vehicle off the road and store it until which point it is either repaired or the claim settled.
The repairer is fully entitled to charge for the storage of the vehicle for the days it is blocking a bay and not authorised, or being stored.
This business is now acting as a “bailee” over the property, and has both a “common law duty of care” and a “contractural” one for the safe upkeeping of that vehicle. The vehicle is taking up space that could be used for other commercial activities , it also needs to be insured.
In the event the insurer does not authorise repairs, or total losses the vehicle, The “Insurer” is STILL liable for these cost. Whether you believe because you have not directly entered into a contract with the repairer means you are not liable, you would be wrong. IT IS A CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY THAT “AS FAR AS MONEY CAN DO,COVER THE LOSS SUSTAINED.
The path the consumer took , was “one of necessity” and covered by “contract of indemnity”. The insurer due to the consumers contract and subrogation of rights MUST pay them.
What I am seeing , is insurers refusing to authorise repairs, advising the vehicle is a “constructive total loss”. An insurer fiction, as it would breach the contract of indemnity due to not indemnifying the insured UP TO the market value. The insurer has now lawful entitlement over a vehicle they do not own to deduct a sum from the settlement.
This forces their own customer to then want to retain salvage on a vehicle they already own. If that is not conning the customer, I do not know what is.
The bigger “CON” is then advising the Bodyshop that the customer is now liable for the recovery and storage of the vehicle. This is legally incorrect… what a bunch of sharks the insurance industry is!
The insurer is liable for all of the recovery and storage charges on the vehicle until which point settlement has been agreed AND paid to the customer. AFTER that point, should the vehicle remain at the bodyshop, the customer is then liable.
DEAR INSURERS, YOU MUST UNDER FSMA2000 FCA REGULATIONS, ACT WITH THE CUSTOMERS BEST INTEREST FIRST AND FOREMOST.
PRIN 6 , ICOBS 2.5.-1 THE CUSTOMER BEST INTEREST RULE.
DON’T BE A BUNCH OF UNSCRUPULOUS SHARKS ! IT WILL BITE YOU ON THE ARSE! I will make sure of it. Bodyshop Magazine (Plenham Ltd) hashtagLAW hashtagcontractlaw hashtagstoragecharges
