I would be pretty aggrieved if this happened to me. Sure, mechanical breakdown was the end result, but it was caused by a genuine accident by the Insured. She was in control at the time, so the fact that she drove through deep water caused by an Act of God is not itself an Act of God, either.
In a similar vein, I just got my motorcycle insurance renewal thorugh the post, and spotted that acts of terrorism are excluded. Just checked the V70 insurance, that for the Missus's 306, and our buildings insurance, all with different insurers, and the same clause applies.
Pants. Just the same as I think about the huge landslip excess for buildings insurance.
If my car, motorbike, or house gets detroyed despite all reasonable care taken by me, I don't care how it gets destroyed, I just want it to be treated as an accident and to be put back in the same state as before - not betterment - at the insurer's cost.
I have long thought that comprehensive should mean just that: Comprehensive. Cover for all accidental damage bar fraud. If Comprehensive were called something else, fine, but not whilst it has a name that calls it something that it clearly is not. Of course, to provide truly comprehensive cover would imply a higher premium, but this is fine too. At least give the option, and be clear about it.
|
|
Quite agree, SjB, if she had aquaplaned into a tree or a wall then there would have been no question about payout.
|
|
|
I\'m not sure its accidental damage. She drove deliberately, although unwisely, into the water and the car failed to cope and a breakdown resulted.
If she had hit the water, lost control, and hit a tree, then I suspect that would have been covered since she would not have intended to hit the tree, that would have been accidental.
If another car had hit her, that again would have been an accident.
If she had deliberately put diesel in her petrol engine, without understanding, and blown the engine up, that would not have been covered. I don\'t think this is so different.
I\'m afraid I\'m with the insurance company on this one.
As for conversations about what should or should not be covered; I regret I don\'t have much sympathy for that either. The company will supply you with a large document explaining exactly what insurance cover you have paid for and what you have not.
People either don\'t read and understand it, or they fail to appreciate that they didn\'t get cover for something they didn\'t realise that they needed.
You can get insurance against just about anything in this world, if you firstly realise that you need/want it and secondly are willing to pay the premium.
If you want it, then go to Lloyds and get \"All Risks\" insurance for your house/car/budgie. I doubt you\'ll like, or be willing to pay, the premium; but you can get it.
Insofar as general motoring is concerned, I would have said that \"comprehensive\" was a fair term, albeit that its misused and misunderstood by punters as often as \"knock for knock\" is.
|
Perhaps asking an insurance expert might help, I was reading something a few months ago (can't remember the publication) where people were paid out because the insurance ombudsman ruled in their favour and the cases were similar to this one.
Check out
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
Even if it does have to be payed for then i'm sure the engine can be replaced for much less than 4k. I know a friend who deals with recon TDI engines for Golf's etc at about £1500.
|
Perhaps asking an insurance expert might help, I was reading something a few months ago (can\'t remember the publication) where people were paid out because the insurance ombudsman ruled in their favour and the cases were similar to this one. Check out www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
I read Ombudsman News each time it comes out (as dull as it sounds, but that\'s the line of work I\'m in). Contrary to popular opinion, the Ombudsman is there to assess both sides of the case and sdjudicate fairly, they aren\'t a rubber-stamp consumer champion, more an arbitration service. One area that they are unable to overturn is clearly stated policy terms and conditions, as these are a commercial matter and not subject to regulation.
It is worth noting that the ombudsman won\'t consider a complaint until you have exhausted the regulated complaints process with the insurer. This process requires that the firm in question provides a full and final response within 8 weeks. If they are unable to do so within this timeframe you may refer the case to the Ombudsman at that stage, but be aware that even then the ombudsman won\'t start to investigate the case until the insurer has provided a response (although they will apply pressure to get that response out to you sooner).
If you beleive that a term of the insurance contract has been applied in a subjective and discriminatory manner then you may get a result through the complaints process/ombudsman. If the insurer has applied an unambiguous contractual term that was set out in the policy documentation then you have little or no chance.
HTH
No Dosh - Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Thanks to all the replies, which will be passed on.
One thing the garage said which I find weird is that the deep water would have been pushed up the exhaust pipe and into the cylinder head, causing damage. I findd it weird in the sense if she still drove out of the water, the power of the engine exhaust would have pushed the water out, so internal intake + damage would be minimal (I think) !!!
Still,not my problem, thankfully,but makes me wonder about policies slanted against the driver.
Thanks again, folks.
|
It wouldn't have gone up the exhaust. Most likely got drawn in through the air intake. On most TDi cars this is mounted as low and far forward as possible to draw in the coldest and therefore densest air to increase power.
First thing I did when I got my Alfa (apart from getting down on my knees and kissing the bumper) was to, er, get down on my knees and look under the bumper to check the location and height of the air intake so I knew how big a problem I would have with deep water.
Suffice to say I stay clear of standing water. It's below and behind the front foglights, so VERY low.
If push came to shove (or tow...) I'd disconnect the trunking from the airbox to the intercooler and let unfiltered air run through the engine for a short period if that was the only way I could get through a flooded section and it was imperative I did so. Unlikely, but something that all TDi owners of all makes should consider.
No Dosh - Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
ND, if you look a bit more closely at the routing of the air intake on your car, you'll probably find that, before it gets to the air filter, there is a u-bend system and a box which basically has a kind of maze in it to ensure no water can make it through.
As to whether you trust that system, that's up to you, but all Alfa's have the intake very low and at the front, and I've never heard of one suffering from hydraulicking (sp?).
|
As to whether you trust that system, that's up to you, but all Alfa's have the intake very low and at the front, and I've never heard of one suffering from hydraulicking (sp?).
Hmmmm.
No. I'll go with disconnecting it. The JTD gulps in air at a prodigious rate and I fail to see how any number of chambers, airlocks, periscopes and diving bells will stop water getting gulped at a similar rate.
Perhaps Alfa owners love their cars too much to drive them through floods, hence the lack of problems reported?
I suspect some wag will be along in a minute to tell us that the engine never gets that far as the bodywork disolves on contact with water.
|
|
I think if it were in any way a mixture of air and water the design would cause the water to fall back down (although I can't find the words to explain why), but yes, if it were 100% water it was sucking in, I can't see any system working.
|
|
Having just returned from a 3 day jaunt to spain where our rental renault clio diesel did seemed to do about 350km on ?20 worth of diesel I'm thinking a TDI might be my next car (though didn't like the clio at all). However I live in a Devon village with frequent flooding, so driving through puddles of several inches is not unusual. Would I be much more likely to damage the engine as you've described than if I had the same car with a petrol engine? Probably going to get a golf, but waiting to see whether the 5 door A3 or 1 series are worth the extra cash.
|
|
Diesels must be more at risk than petrols because there is much less combustion chamber volume in a diesel at tdc than in an equivalent petrol, so it would require less water to be sucked into a diesel to wreck it. Air intake position is probably more important, however, and this does not depend on the type of engine.
|
|
>>>ND, if you look a bit more closely at the routing of the air
>>>intake on your car, you'll probably find that, before it gets to
>>> the air filter, there is a u-bend system and a box which
>>>basically has a kind of maze in it to ensure no water can make
>>>it through.
If the engine is on the induction stroke, it will suck water past those things. I suspect they are for tuning the inlet tract and/or noise reduction rather than to stop wather getting in??
Martin (whose MX5 has very weird appendages before and after the air filter which the book says is for 'tuning'.
|
|
|
ND, if you look a bit more closely at the routing of the air intake on your car, you'll probably find that, before it gets to the air filter, there is a u-bend system and a box which basically has a kind of maze in it to ensure no water can make it through. As to whether you trust that system, that's up to you, but all Alfa's have the intake very low and at the front, and I've never heard of one suffering from hydraulicking (sp?).
Bazza, you may want to read the content of the following link
vamp.idlers.org/~jaffa/guidelines.htm
:o(
|
Yikes. I think I may just take a step back from this thread, since I've obviously been talking pure guff since it's inception
*Bazza hides under table, whimpering, in the foetal position*
|
|
|
|
|
|
