Jump to content

Is it an urban myth that insurers refuse..


Recommended Posts

..payout if you are parked on the street and not your drive?

 

We now live on a cul-de-sac where most of the houses have drives.

The majority of neighbours park on their drives and visitors park on the street, however one in particular seems to like to park on the street instead of his drive.

No problem for me as I am obviously the best driver in the world but some lesser drivers have trouble, the neighbour parks his car outside his house ( opposite the road that leads onto the cul-de-sac ) and parks his supermarket work van on the corner or in other obstructive places. :rolleyes:

 

After much lamenting his daftness we got around to arguing if his insurance would refuse payout if it got stolen.

Assuming he declared driveway parking on his policy of course.

Has anyone ever known anyone to be declined payout under similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My insurance policy states that if the vehicles (it’s a multi-car/motorcycle policy) are “at or near the declared address between 10 PM and 6AM, and are not within a locked garage, they shall not be covered for theft or malicious damage.”

 

I hope that helps.

 

Is that because you've declared them to be garaged on the proposal form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garaged gives a bigger discount (anecdotal from my comparison quotes) so I would guess that it is fairly black and white.

 

My thought is the discount for being on the driveway must be it would be less likely to get scuffed by passing cars and we would be more likely to notice someone snooping around on a driveway than we would on the street.

 

How would they police this though?

If they said it should be in the garage and no garage was broken into so we aren't paying they would be sticking to their rules but the driveway one is surely harder to prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onus is on the insurers to prove it. Its feasible that they would investigate to see if the car owner actually had a drive and that it was usable, but unlikely. They'd have to have some pretty solid evidence to refuse to pay out, and the insurance ombudsman would side with the owner if there was none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onus is on the insurers to prove it. Its feasible that they would investigate to see if the car owner actually had a drive and that it was usable, but unlikely. They'd have to have some pretty solid evidence to refuse to pay out, and the insurance ombudsman would side with the owner if there was none.

 

I suppose if the whole side of your car had been stoved in while parked on the street it'd be difficult to say it had been on the drive when it happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question was about theft.

It wouldn't make any difference if the vehicle was on the driveway or road.

 

Fair enough..although it might make a difference if the driveway had locked gates..can't remember whether I was asked about gates on my insurance application..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.