Invalid motor insurance in Amber Countries

[DebsD]

Morning all. We're due to travel to France to purchase a property and are staying in a rental property there for 6 months whilst we do so. We have a year long visa, medical insurance and thought we'd jumped through all the hoops and cut through all the red tape so all ready to go........until.......

Speaking to my insurance company they say if a country is on the UK Amber list and the FCDO office say essential travel only, the motor insurance is void. This is regardless of the fact that purchasing/ travelling to a main residence (we sold our house here so it will be our main residence) is essential travel. Of course, it's also legal to travel to an amber country.

I checked and it is in the small print. I also rang 2 other insurance brokers and they said exactly the same.

Just thought I'd share so other funsters could double check their policies.

 

[The Wino]

I'd have said it needed no more detail as it's pretty clear to me but yes, another shafting of customers from them

Is it shafting the customers more to have that clause or to not have it and charge all customers more for insurance to cover the risk even if they don't travel abroad?

 

[maz]

If I were an insurance company I would definitely have that clause in the policy. Remember FO Advice is not just for Covid. I agree that just for that its a bit lame, however the clause is important If any country has civil unrest, or say an active volcano, the FO advice can change. Stretching it a bit I agree but for arguments sake let's say that we have 6 months of serious Yellow Jacket riots in France and the FO advises against going there, but you ignore them. Why should the insurance company be liable for a brick through your window or petrol bomb under your motorhome?

But surely that’s already covered under the Terrorism or Riot exclusions that already exist in a motor policy?

 

[Jim]

But surely that’s already covered under the Terrorism or Riot exclusions that already exist in a motor policy?

Good point, but if you were an insurance company, having a client go against government advice is a top class copout. the more exclusions in their policies the better they like it.

 

[maz]

Good point, but if you were an insurance company, having a client go against government advice is a top class copout. the more exclusions in their policies the better they like it.

That is probably so - but I don’t think they should be encouraged to follow that path.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[beerdrinker1]

I spoke with Darren and he basically said we shouldn't be travelling anyway so nobody will cover any vehicle to an amber country. When I asked why the risks were any higher, he just said because it's the way it is and again that we shouldn't be travelling so I've no idea where he's coming from.

Hi Debs,

With Darrens comments like that, he's going to lose an awful lot of business both from new and existing members, I was insured by AIB for a while and initially he couldn't do enough for you, then less and less until he seemed he couldn't be bothered, which is when I made a rapid exit to a more accommodating company !

 

[Blue Knight]

But surely that’s already covered under the Terrorism or Riot exclusions that already exist in a motor policy?

If someone was to examine any FCO/FCDO 'country-specific advisories' over the last 20+ years then they would soon conclude that it's written in a very grey manner; very few black and white bits but lots 'n' lots of grey.

This style of assessment certainly helps out insurance companies at the corporate level - for sure.

 

[Skez]

Re-read my Comfort policy cover to cover - and no similar exclusion. The usual riot / civil unrest etc but nothing explicit about travelling against FCDO advice.

 

[MillieMoocher]

Jim makes a good point re the “wider than Covid” nature of the exclusion.

I don’t know for sure, but would think one major issue the Insurers would be thinking about currently is what happens if there is a claim.

say the van needs to be repatriated for repair - they need to find people willing to do this which might be more costly etc - if people are sent from the U.K. there may be implications for quarantine when they bring the van back, I don’t know.

Maybe claims costs are higher too, even if repairs are done locally - maybe the country is more locked down and the van might sit for weeks on end before repairs commence.

So I have to say that it doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me...I would have thought if you need to go for Essential Travel a decent broker could sort out a one off cover.

re the Gibraltar companies, they won’t be any different. The sole reason for setting up off shore is that regulation and capital requirements for the Insurer are less draconian than on the mainland so Gib becomes attractive to risk carriers who are a touch under funded or prefer the lighter touch of regulation. Personally I avoid such risk carriers....

 

[gus-lopez]

Why should the insurance company be liable for a brick through your window or petrol bomb under your motorhome?

But that is what you are insuring for.

But surely that’s already covered under the Terrorism or Riot exclusions that already exist in a motor policy?

Exactly.

re the Gibraltar companies, they won’t be any different. The sole reason for setting up off shore is that regulation and capital requirements for the Insurer are less draconian than on the mainland so Gib becomes attractive to risk carriers who are a touch under funded or prefer the lighter touch of regulation.

No the policy is identical to one taken out with a spanish company except that the Gib companies only offer 90 days green card whereas the spanish ones are 365 no restrictions on any european country ,Bosnia, Russia morocco included.

View attachment 503558This is the clause in my insurance documents. I think it's quite self explanatory and clearly refers to driving, not breakdown cover.

You really need to ask for an answer in writing as to whether they are actally stating that in the event the veicle is sed outside the Uk that they are stating that they would not cover there legal responsibilities requiring them to cover third party claims regardless of the circumstances.
If I had found that clause in my policy without being told I'd be looking to heave the broker through his front window.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

But surely that’s already covered under the Terrorism or Riot exclusions that already exist in a motor policy?

& ,even with those get outs they are still liable for third party claims, which is what i insure for.

 

[The Wino]

& ,even with those get outs they are still liable for third party claims, which is what i insure for.

That's fine if you can afford to lose the MH value if not you need full cover

 

[DebsD]

Hi Debs,

With Darrens comments like that, he's going to lose an awful lot of business both from new and existing members, I was insured by AIB for a while and initially he couldn't do enough for you, then less and less until he seemed he couldn't be bothered, which is when I made a rapid exit to a more accommodating company !

I 100% agree with you. My car insurance is also due to be renewed in a week and my premium has increased rather a lot. There's another call to Darren to be made as I've found comparable policies for less elsewhere.

 

[deleted79651]

Good point, but if you were an insurance company, having a client go against government advice is a top class copout. the more exclusions in their policies the better they like it.

'We're premium class Insurers, offering exclusive cover to our Clients ...'? And there was me thinking I was going up in the world, rather than the creek into which the septic tank discharges its contents ...[Bonus for linking 2 contentious threads? Petty please?]

Steve

 

[MillieMoocher]

gus-lopez I didn’t mean the policy wording...

Companies set up in Gib or Malta as they need to hold a much lower capital solvency ratio. So for example, and these aren’t precise numbers, a U.K. domiciled Insurer will need to hold roughly 66% of the gross written premiums in assets. So to write £10,000,000 of premium they need to hold £6,000,000 of capital. And there are restrictions about how and what that asset base is made up of. For example, equity market assists are written down by 20% so even if you think you’ve got £1,000,000 in the stock market only £800,000 will qualify as “capital” - property similarly. Any money borrowed in form of a loan doesn’t qualify, so your asset base needs to be founded initially in shareholder funds.

If you domicile off shore, the initial capital requirements are lower - around 50%, so you can write more premium income from a lower asset base. Plus the FCA style regulation is a lighter touch.

These ratios of asset to premium written do vary depending on what class of business you write, which makes it a bit more complicated.



As regards “ brick through window - it’s what I’m insured for“ - a reasonable point but you are required to mitigate your losses and not court misfortune. This will be written in some form of words in the policy, and in any event is a basic tenant of Insurance and has been upheld on numerous occasions in court. So venturing into a riot by deliberately travelling to a country you were told by the FO not to go to as it’s unsafe would at a technical level not be covered anyway.

BTW I’m not looking for any falling out or arguments here, I’m just trying to explain the comments re off shore insurers and the existing (as in pre Covid) perils of travel against FO advice and the insurance implications of so doing.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

That's fine if you can afford to lose the MH value if not you need full cover

& that is the problem now with UK insurance . People think it is to pay them out when they make a stupid decision & write off the insured vehicle.It isn't ,they should be footing that themselves which is why here once 3 years old most policies revert to t,p,f&t unless you insist.
Once 10 years old if you then attempt to change companies many will only offer tp,f&t .If you buy at 10 or more years old you will not be offered anything else. The only place you would be able to get full comp would be with a Gib company.
Then again if you claim ,they pay out ,the premium rarely rises as is still as it was in the Uk 50 years ago. Balanced by those who do not claim.+there is no easy way out with companies colluding with "knock for knock" .

 

[Barclaybasher]

I have 2 campers insured with AIB - not happy that I've not been notified about this exclusion - didn't read the small print though.

I have a green card for my Mobilvetta which covers from March to September through Caravanguard. No excusions on that - will check the small print before renewing with AIB next time......

 

[Langtoftlad]

I've previously been insured with AIB, never again.
I know they're advertisers on here but I wouldn't be surprised to read the words AIB & Cowboys in the same sentence.
This is obviously just a personal opinion.

 

[DebsD]

I've previously been insured with AIB, never again.
I know they're advertisers on here but I wouldn't be surprised to read the words AIB & Cowboys in the same sentence.
This is obviously just a personal opinion.

We had our old motorhone insured with them but changed as we weren't happy with the service. Went back with them when they assured us they could do the job. Ever wish you didn't go back? I certainly do right now

 

[Dorset Diver]

If I were an insurance company I would definitely have that clause in the policy. Remember FO Advice is not just for Covid. I agree that just for that its a bit lame, however the clause is important If any country has civil unrest, or say an active volcano, the FO advice can change. Stretching it a bit I agree but for arguments sake let's say that we have 6 months of serious Yellow Jacket riots in France and the FO advises against going there, but you ignore them. Why should the insurance company be liable for a brick through your window or petrol bomb under your motorhome?

Your argument is valid if the risk increases but to the best of my knowledge MH's don't catch by SARS-CoV-2 and are unaffected by Covid 19. Therefore the risk to the vehicle is not raised.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Dorset Diver]

Good point, but if you were an insurance company, having a client go against government advice is a top class copout. the more exclusions in their policies the better they like it.

Nail on head Jim. It's nothing more than a copout.

 

[Jim]

Your argument is valid if the risk increases but to the best of my knowledge MH's don't catch by SARS-CoV-2 and are unaffected by Covid 19. Therefore the risk to the vehicle is not raised.

I already said I think reducing cover just for CV is lame. But they are pro excuse makers, of course vehicles don't catch Covid, but just off the top of my head, In pandemics garages close, recovery people are short staffed, travel restrictions might be in place making repatriation much more expensive for the insurer. Real extra costs. Far easier to put a clause in about FCO advice

That said, I wouldn't go travelling against FCO advice.

 

[The Wino]

We had our old motorhone insured with them but changed as we weren't happy with the service. Went back with them when they assured us they could do the job. Ever wish you didn't go back? I certainly do right now

It depends if policies from other brokers give better cover or they aren't making people aware of the limitations. I think it's always been a lot easier to pay for insurance than claim.

 

[Barclaybasher]

I already said I think reducing cover just for CV is lame. But they are pro excuse makers, of course vehicles don't catch Covid, but just off the top of my head, In pandemics garages close, recovery people are short staffed, travel restrictions might be in place making repatriation much more expensive for the insurer. Real extra costs. Far easier to put a clause in about FCO advice

That said, I wouldn't go travelling against FCO advice.

Yes but premiums haven't gone down even though use of vehicles has and I'm sure claims have been a fraction of a normal year........

 

[Dorset Diver]

It depends if policies from other brokers give better cover or they aren't making people aware of the limitations. I think it's always been a lot easier to pay for insurance than claim.

No question about it some have certainly taken advantage and the easy way out. As for travelling in amber listed countries, I would and may well do, it if it appears that the infection rate is similar to the UK. In this instance HMG seem to have gone overboard with concern about the Nepalese variant (apparently a marriage of the Indian and South African versions) which some are now saying does not exist. Never mind, it will all change in another three weeks .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Potty]

Yes but premiums haven't gone down even though use of vehicles has and I'm sure claims have been a fraction of a normal year........

Our son works on vehicle claims and has been as busy as pre-pandemic.

 

[pampam]

Debsd could you hire a vehicle

 

[Barclaybasher]

Our son works on vehicle claims and has been as busy as pre-pandemic.

Pandemic lockdowns lead to fall in motor insurance claims in 2020 | ABI

The number of motor insurance claims settled by insurers in 2020 fell by 19% according to figures published today by the Association of British Insurers.

www.abi.org.uk

 

[The Wino]

Pandemic lockdowns lead to fall in motor insurance claims in 2020 | ABI

The number of motor insurance claims settled by insurers in 2020 fell by 19% according to figures published today by the Association of British Insurers.

www.abi.org.uk

I see that the personal injury claims were still increasing that should soon drop.

 

[Chris]

I see that the personal injury claims were still increasing that should soon drop.

I think that increase includes accidents at work and in shops etc etc, not just motor policy personal injury claims.

They should all drop I guess given lockdown

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Wino]

I think that increase includes accidents at work and in shops etc etc, not just motor policy personal injury claims.

They should all drop I guess given lockdown

I meant because the law changed the other day I heard on whiplash injury claims