Quinn won't cover flood damage on full policy

brettman

Hi,
I had some serious damage in the floods a few weeks ago (engine completely frozen), and now finding out that Quinn won't honour the claim. On the phone, they said they would, but later decided that I 'chose' to drive through the water, and that it amounts to negligence.

I've spoken to the Insurance Information Society (supposedly separate from the insurance companies) who said I don't have much legal ground to stand on, but that many other insurance companies are paying out.

Wondering if I should go to a solicitor with this, or if there is any chance I might convince quinn to pay out... I only had 26K km on fully paid off car, and I'm pretty upset about it.

Anybody have any experience with this? Would appreciate any advice or comments...

daRobot

Sorry to hear that.

How did they establish that you "chose" to drive through the water?

Zube

daRobot wrote: »

How did they establish that you "chose" to drive through the water?

2 foot deep puddles hardly ever jump out in front of cars unexpectedly.

dodgyme

thats madness - I will be changing from quinn next time out then

colsers22

It's impossible to tell how deep a pool of water it when you're approaching it. I would not accept this.. I would contact my solicitor.

spadder

quinn are cheap for quotes etc, but you will find it very hard to get them to payout on a claim.

Zube

A special prize for:

nickhilliard wrote: »

I've heard about cases of people who have been refused cover because from the point of view of the insurance company, they deliberately did something which was risky and which consequently damaged their vehicles. YMMV.

This was on the thread about muppets driving into floods in Dublin earlier this month.

daveharnett

brettman wrote: »

Wondering if I should go to a solicitor with this, or if there is any chance I might convince quinn to pay out...

The solicitor would be my first call tbh. While he/she may very well tell you that quinn are legally in the clear, any argument you make will be taken that bit more seriously if it's on headed paper.

Darcy, Duffy and co would be my second/third calls :pac:

Guy:Incognito

colsers22 wrote: »

It's impossible to tell how deep a pool of water it when you're approaching it. I would not accept this.. I would contact my solicitor.

How is it impossible? You can measure off things you can see, like walls. But if your using a wall to measure the depth of a flood it probably means you cant see the kerbs(becuase the are underwater) so it's too deep.

Going through shallow puddles too fast can , potentially , throw water up into the air intake so if any flooding is aroudn at all it should be avoided unless completely essential (emergency etc)

colsers22

Stekelly wrote: »

How is it impossible? You can measure off things you can see, like walls. But if your using a wall to measure the depth of a flood it probably means you cant see the kerbs(becuase the are underwater) so it's too deep.

Going through shallow puddles too fast can , potentially , throw water up into the air intake so if any flooding is aroudn at all it should be avoided unless completely essential (emergency etc)

In fairness, there aren't that many kerbs or walls adjacent to country roads. That is really what I was referring to.

woodseb

colsers22 wrote: »

It's impossible to tell how deep a pool of water it when you're approaching it. I.

i think that's the whole point - the OP took a risk

Guy:Incognito

colsers22 wrote: »

In fairness, there aren't that many kerbs or walls adjacent to country roads. That is really what I was referring to.

Well as a general rule, if the road is covered the whole way across for more than a couple of feet, it's bad to drive through.

Zube

Any cases of this sort of damage I've heard of have been people trying to cross a flood, driving slowly until the water reaches the air intake. The water has to be really deep for this on most cars, coming-in-the-doors deep.

...and the OP may have described the circumstances on a written claim form already.

mickdw

Dont take that **** from them. Get solicitor quick.

galwaytt

brettman wrote: »

Hi,
I had some serious damage in the floods a few weeks ago (engine completely frozen), and now finding out that Quinn won't honour the claim. On the phone, they said they would, but later decided that I 'chose' to drive through the water, and that it amounts to negligence.

nonsense - if that argument were true, they'd never pay out on any Comprehensive claims, on the basis that all owner-claims are 'negligent'.....they're not, the word they're look for is 'accident'.......for which you paid them. If the policy does not specifically exclude this act, then they can't shirk from it, and you should sue them for both breach of contract, and, the damage you're claiming for. Including a replacement car for the duration of the 'wrangle'. That way, every day they waste, it's another few €€€ they'll be liable for. They need to understand it's preferable they settle, early on, rather than incur huge costs further down the road.......

I've spoken to the Insurance Information Society (supposedly separate from the insurance companies) who said I don't have much legal ground to stand on, but that many other insurance companies are paying out.

Waste of time - you're only talking to ins co cronies.

Wondering if I should go to a solicitor with this, or if there is any chance I might convince quinn to pay out... I only had 26K km on fully paid off car, and I'm pretty upset about it.

Absolutely - out with the big guns - and quick. And be persistant.

-Chris-

I don't think you have a leg to stand on OP, you shouldn't have driven through the flood.

In a way it doesn't matter if the water was 6in or 2ft, different cars have air intakes at different heights and even with a high intake you can still get caught with a bow wave from another car.

If insurance companies pay out, it's for goodwill. I don't think Quinn are big on goodwill.

I'm sorry it happend and I feel bad for you, but I don't think you have any legal recourse.

mik_da_man

This may sound like a stupid question but I thought Comp insurance didn't cover mechanical issues?
eg the oil runs out in my car and engine fecks up
Could I just claim for a new engine??....

fightin irish

OP i'm in a main dealer and at the moment we have 5 focus engines on order due to the floods.
All of these engines are insurance jobs and guess what...3 of them are with Quinn direct!! who are forking out for the work!
Now i hear that dealers up and down the country are screming for these engines, They have gone on backorder the demand is so big.

It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that Quinn direct got hit with endless claims in the last two weeks and are now closing rank and refusing claims.
Initially we was surprised to hear they were honouring these claims.

-Chris-

mik_da_man wrote: »

This may sound like a stupid question but I thought Comp insurance didn't cover mechanical issues?
eg the oil runs out in my car and engine fecks up
Could I just claim for a new engine??....

Mechanical issues should be covered by warranty, not insurance.

It's more than a mechanical issue though...

If you are in a car looking at a body of water and you consciously decide to drive through it even though the AA Roadwatch report every 15 mins is telling people not to drive through water, then it's neither a random occurrence or an accident. It's a direct result of a decision you made.

If I'm driving home and I hit you with my car, my insurance will pay for your recuperation (hopefully). If I'm driving home and you jump deliberately in front of my car, they won't.
Again, bad outcome from a poor decision. Why would the insurance company feel they had any liability?

Zube

fightin irish wrote: »

OP i'm in a main dealer and at the moment we have 5 focus engines on order due to the floods.

Gives a whole new meaning to Ford Motors!

-Chris-

*Groan*:p

testicle

colsers22 wrote: »

It's impossible to tell how deep a pool of water it when you're approaching it.

This is exactly why you are not supposed to drive through a flood.

guil

feel sorry for the op but at the end of the day it was his/her decision to drive through it and dont think quinn or any other ins co would be legally required to pay out

January

I heard that the insurance companies are taking these claims on on a case by case basis.

If you car was parked somewhere (eg, the airport which was pretty badly affected and something you couldn't avoid) then I can see why the paid out.

If you choose to drive through a huge body of water and feck your car up it's your fault, not the insurance companies. They don't have to pay out on the claim, your insurance is there if you have an accident or if your car is stolen/set on fire.

Not if you think you can make it through a puddle and then feck it up.

Tipsy Mac

I think Quinn wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court, your assumption while driving is that the road shall remain driveable and safe without a flood. If you were driving down the Royal Canal in your car that would be different

What they are saying is the same as if they told you they were not paying out on a theft claim because you parked in a Scangeragua area, policing isn't your problem neither are flash floods.

crosstownk

If you can prove that driving through the flood was unavoidable then you have a case. However, if Quinn can prove that it was avoidable then you're fcuked.

You drove through it so you know the road and conditions. Weigh it up and make your choice.

Heathen

testicle wrote: »

This is exactly why you are not supposed to drive through a flood.

on the otherhand...

My Bro and his girlfriend were on the m50 on one of the days of mad flooding.. and they didnt drive into a puddle.. they were stuck in a traffic jam for over 30 mins of heavy rain.. ended up with water up as far as the gearstick inside the car.. best of all they payed 2 euro for the privilege of being stuck for 30 mins in traffic and the end result her car is wrote off... but at least their claim was honored

insurance companies are all a <SNIP>anyway, i have been driving for about 13 years and have payed out well over 12 thousand euro on policy's and never ever made a claim.. but you can be sure if i ever needed to claim if even for 2 or 3 grand they would find some excuse not to pay out..<SNIP> the lot of them!!

Keith C

Do you have comprehensive insurance? if so then you can claim under accidental damage section.
Comphrehensice is basicly

Third party, fire, theft, accidentel damage.
If you have TPF&T your not covered.

Another scenario, If a road is icy & you decide to drive on it, skid & lose control you claim under accidental damage.

Read the terms & conditions of your policy

Let us now how you get on

btw on www.askaboutmoney.com under the insurance section theres a claims manager from quinn that post there, set up a thread there & see what response you get.

mcwhirter

woodseb wrote: »

i think that's the whole point - the OP took a risk

We all take a risk everyday driving on our ****ty roads

craichoe

mcwhirter wrote: »

We all take a risk everyday driving on our ****ty roads

Their not that bad, just too many cars for too little road overwhelmed by a lack of public transport and lack of choice.

I don't know why people have this idea of driving eutopia outside Ireland, Germany has bad roads too, even parts of Autobahn are dodgy. Its sort of like Ireland in that respect too, crap road surface, no speed limit, good road surface, 120kp/h.

Don't even get me started on English roads .... Anyways, i would say they've improved massively over the years. I remember doing Clonmel to Dublin in a Pug 206 many years ago, 3 hours and that was booting it, there was feck all motorway.

brettman

Thanks for all the replys. Thing is, I have told them in a written statement that the reason I went through the water was because it didn't look deep at all. Certainly a wide puddle, but only about curb depth. I've driven through thousands of such puddles in many years of driving, and never had a problem. Problem was, that the water did get about knee deep in the middle. Got a bit in in the cabin of the car. Was a very brief section of it being that deeep, which I know because I got out to push the car to dry land. The other problem, as I discovered is that on my Peugeot, the air intake pipes right down to the bottom of the enigne, so it took a good deal of water in.

There was nobody stalled out there, and several similar cars going through the same puddle, successfully, both before and after my car tanked. A good few taxis among them. IMO, there was really no reason to expect a problem.