contractor car insurance claim contractor car insurance claim - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    40,719

    Default

    I'd also be surprised if they'd class it as an innocent mistake. Ignorance isn't a defence for many things, tax being one that springs to mind so I'd expect the insurers would be a bit cool on this as well.

    Not understanding your responsibilities as a business and as a director wouldn't get you off much I'd imagine.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  2. #22

    TPAFKAk2p2

    mudskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Null island
    Posts
    26,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vwdan View Post
    I'm really surprised you see it that way, and so black and white too. If the OP was an employee working for a consultancy, being sent to a customer site - would you feel the exact same way?

    It's a genuine question, because when I first became a permie consultant the first thing I did was get business insurance. I had a commute to my companies office, and then I'd drive all over to various customer sites (and hotels etc)

    To me, that's exactly what OP is doing just like we all do.
    Agree - in previous permieLand job, I had to have business insurance on my car (and show proof) if I wanted to use it for travel to other sites. PermCo made pool cars available for those who did not have business cover.

  3. #23

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vwdan View Post
    I'm really surprised you see it that way, and so black and white too. If the OP was an employee working for a consultancy, being sent to a customer site - would you feel the exact same way?

    It's a genuine question, because when I first became a permie consultant the first thing I did was get business insurance. I had a commute to my companies office, and then I'd drive all over to various customer sites (and hotels etc)

    To me, that's exactly what OP is doing just like we all do.
    A supply teacher travelling to different schools = business use

    A contractor travelling to a single place of work = commuting

    In OP’s situation, there is a valid argument to say this is not commuting (because although it is regular, it is not frequent).

    Under the Consumer Insurance Act, because there is an area of doubt, at worst this would be considered a misrepresentation but not deliberate or reckless.

    Additionally, I would wager adding commuting to the policy would make a tiny impact on the premium, if indeed any material impact at all.

    An insurer would not - and indeed could not - refuse to pay out a claim on these grounds alone.

  4. #24

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    40,719

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiisch View Post
    A contractor travelling to a single place of work = commuting
    F**k me sideways...

    A contractors single place of work is their home. They are traveling to the clients site to do business.

    Both your examples are exactly the same. Travelling to temporary sites.

    It's your shocking lack of contracting knowledge that is letting you down. Not your insurance knowledge.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  5. #25

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    2,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiisch View Post
    A supply teacher travelling to different schools = business use

    A contractor travelling to a single place of work = commuting

    In OP’s situation, there is a valid argument to say this is not commuting (because although it is regular, it is not frequent).
    I think those are the same thing.

    But you didn't answer my quesiton? Should a consultant travelling to different clients get business insurance? If so, then so should the OP.

  6. #26

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    40,719

    Default

    Not sure it's totally relevant but just to throw an interesting curve ball in to your teacher analogy.

    Full time employed teachers should also have business class should they ever need to carry kids or attend off site training/seminars and so on.

    And thinking about it attending interviews isn't travelling to work so you'd have to have business class for that no?
    Last edited by northernladuk; 16th October 2018 at 16:56.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  7. #27

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    208

    Default

    For an underwriter's purposes, a contractor's home address would not be considered a work address as:

    1). It is likely that company address is at their registered accountant's, so technically that could be construed as the work address;

    2). If a permanent employee works from home occasionally, that is not considered a place of work for insurance purposes. E.g.: that same evening, the insured is not considered to have parked their car at work as opposed to home.

    If there is a "regular" place of work, this falls under commuting use. If there is multiple sites of work, this is Class 1 Business Use. I suppose technically speaking, for a contractor, travelling to interviews by car would fall under Class 1 Business Use, but no underwriter in the land would apply this rule, and similarly the average insurance consumer would not be expected to know this.

    A teacher transporting children within the context of work would be an absolute no-no - the potential for enormous PI claims would make this extremely high risk, and most typical insurers wouldn't touch this (I would suggest this would fall under Class 3 Business Use, which for a teacher would be extremely hard to obtain cover for).

    To refuse a claim, the insurer must demonstrate that the insured has been reckless or deliberate in their misrepresentation of material facts. The misrepresentation must be pertinent to the cause of the loss. For example, I have seen claims paid for individuals who have unquestionably lied about their address to obtain a cheaper premium, but the insurer has still paid the first party claim as the loss is not related to the lie. However, if the claim was theft from the home address and they had given a false address, in that scenario insurer would indeed likely refuse indemnity.

  8. #28

    Prof Cunning @ Oxford Uni

    WTFH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiisch View Post
    For an underwriter's purposes, a contractor's home address would not be considered a work address as:

    1). It is likely that company address is at their registered accountant's, so technically that could be construed as the work address;
    Assumption, not always correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by fiisch View Post
    2). If a permanent employee works from home occasionally, that is not considered a place of work for insurance purposes. E.g.: that same evening, the insured is not considered to have parked their car at work as opposed to home.
    Irrelevant. We are talking about a contractor, not a permanent employee who has a contract of employment with their employer.
    A contractor has a business to business contract with the client. It is a business relationship, therefore business insurance is required when travelling on business relating to your business delivering business to other businesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by fiisch View Post
    If there is a "regular" place of work, this falls under commuting use. If there is multiple sites of work, this is Class 1 Business Use. I suppose technically speaking, for a contractor, travelling to interviews by car would fall under Class 1 Business Use, but no underwriter in the land would apply this rule, and similarly the average insurance consumer would not be expected to know this.
    If a contractor is travelling to the same site for 24 months or more, then it is a regular place of work.
    If someone is travelling to the same site for a long period of time as their regular place of work, then they are a disguised employee, not a contractor.

    A supply teacher going to work in different schools is exactly the same as a contractor going to work for different clients.
    Moderation means Moderation
    Strong and Stable Moderation

    Get Moderation Done - Unleash Moderator Potential

  9. #29

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WTFH View Post
    If a contractor is travelling to the same site for 24 months or more, then it is a regular place of work.
    If someone is travelling to the same site for a long period of time as their regular place of work, then they are a disguised employee, not a contractor.

    A supply teacher going to work in different schools is exactly the same as a contractor going to work for different clients.
    No it isn't - a supply teacher might travel to 3 schools in a week, if a contractor is traveling to the same place of work for a given contract, that is commuting use not class 1 business use.

    The only scenario I can see where a contractor would require business use is if they were working across multiple sites for the same client.

    There is an argument to suggest travelling to interviews as a contractor would constitute business use but:

    1). There is an element of business use included in SDP (typically upto 500-1000 miles per year);

    2). No underwriter in the land would enforce this condition, of that I can be certain.

  10. #30

    Prof Cunning @ Oxford Uni

    WTFH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiisch View Post
    No it isn't - a supply teacher might travel to 3 schools in a week, if a contractor is traveling to the same place of work for a given contract, that is commuting use not class 1 business use.

    The only scenario I can see where a contractor would require business use is if they were working across multiple sites for the same client.

    There is an argument to suggest travelling to interviews as a contractor would constitute business use but:

    1). There is an element of business use included in SDP (typically upto 500-1000 miles per year);

    2). No underwriter in the land would enforce this condition, of that I can be certain.

    Garbage.
    A contractor can work for more than one client at a time, just like a supply teacher
    A contractor can work at more than one client site at a time, just like a supply teacher.
    Not all SDP policies include commuting. NO SDP policies include business use
    An SDP policy that includes commuting is an SDPC - social, domestic, pleasure and commuting to and from a permanent place of work.

    Based on all your errors, your last comment about being certain about what underwriters would enforce is also wrong.

    How to choose the right class of use for car insurance - Admiral.com
    Moderation means Moderation
    Strong and Stable Moderation

    Get Moderation Done - Unleash Moderator Potential

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •