Red Alert Weather Warning - Car Insured?

[JeniPeni]

I've tried calling our insurers to find out if the car is insured if I have to drive during a red weather warning - it's closed due to an emergency! I'm guessing they're all away home early because of the snow! Anyone know? Thanks.

[woofgang]

what does your policy say?

[JeniPeni]

I don't see anything on it about it. It just talks about de-icing first and having shovels etc. Nothing specific about red alert.

[woofgang]

is there anything more general about severe weather and being advised not to drive.....but does your POLICY actually have stuff about de icing and shovels in it?

[Deskdiary]

There will be nothing in your policy that states you are not allowed to drive during a Red weather alert.

[JeniPeni]

Absolutely nothing about weather. So I'm guessing I'm covered.

[Arrods]

What about the general policy condition which says you must take all reasonable steps to safeguard your vehicle from loss? Just saying.

[JeniPeni]

I wasnt thinking about 'loss'; more about being insured for driving under 'conditions'.

[Arrods]

I meant loss or damage. So if you drive when you know you should not have ventured out, and you damage your own vehicle, the insurer could - in theory - refuse to pay out. Third party injury/damage should be covered however. Your cover would be valid so far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, if this is the thrust of your question.

[Deskdiary]

There's nothing in the RTA that states you cannot drive when there's a red weather warning, and nothing in your policy that states you cannot drive when there's a red weather warning.

Therefore if you drive and hit somebody the third party part of your policy will pay the third party. If you sustain damage, the own damage part of your policy will pay for your damage (otherwise your insurers would be in breach of contract).

[Arrods]

Can't agree with the last bit deskdiary. If the loss or damage is attributable to the breach of the 'taking care' policy condition (applies to retail customers only), then the insurer would be perfectly entitled to repudiate the own damage claim. In practice, probably not though.

[New Judge]

"If the loss or damage is attributable to the breach of the 'taking care' policy condition (applies to retail customers only), then the insurer would be perfectly entitled to repudiate the own damage claim."

Absolute cobblers. If that were the case everybody driving in fog, heavy rain, icy conditions and so on would face placing their OD cover in jeopardy. I cannot see the ombudsman or a civil court agreeing that driving in the snow amounts to lack of care.

[Arrods]

OK everyone I'm talking in general terms. All policies relating to retail customers have a condition requiring the policyholder to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. So, New Judge, to take your example of driving in fog. If you drive recklessly too close to someone in near zero visibility the insurer would - in theory - be perfectly entitled to reject your claim. If you think that's 'cobblers', then the CII insurance text book needs amending.

[Deskdiary]

The reasonable precautions condition would not operate in this instance. There is not an insurer in the country who would refuse to pay out following an incident where a vehicle was driven where there is a red weather warning.

You've misunderstood the CII text.

[New Judge]

"If you drive recklessly too close to someone in near zero visibility the insurer would - in theory - be perfectly entitled to reject your claim."

We're not talking about driving recklessly. No mention has been made in the OP's question or in subsequent answers of recklessness. We're simply talking about driving in the snow taking the appropriate (enhanced) care.

[Deskdiary]

Taking your driving in fog example where you state the insurer would in theory be perfectly entitled to reject the own damage part of the claim. There is No "In theory" about it. The insurer absolutely would not have grounds to refuse to pay the claim.

[Arrods]

OK I strayed off topic - apologies. No insurer is going to use a Red Alert warning to reject an OD claim. But New Judge took issue with me with:

"Absolute cobblers. If that were the case everybody driving in fog, heavy rain, icy conditions and so on would face placing their OD cover in jeopardy. I cannot see the ombudsman or a civil court agreeing that driving in the snow amounts to lack of care."

If you drove recklessly, as I suggested, you certainly would be placing your OD cover in jeopardy.

I was simply trying to point out to readers that there is a 'taking care' condition in policies and shouldn't be dismissed.

I have certainly not misunderstood the CII text.

[Deskdiary]

"If you drove recklessly, as I suggested, you certainly would be placing your OD cover in jeopardy."

No you wouldn't.

People convicted of driving recklessly or dangerously following an accident do not have the OD part of their claim turned down.

[Arrods]

So what's the point then of a policy condition (breach of which could be repudiation of a claim) which states "You ...must do everything possible to keep your car in an efficient, safe and roadworthy condition and to protect ... it from loss or damage"?

The text book gives the example of someone with dodgy brakes or bald tyres having their OD claim repudiated, so why couldn't an insurer extend it to other scenarios, given sufficient evidence?
At least one insurer throws out OD claims for drink-driving and seeks recovery of TP payouts to boot.

[New Judge]

Of course the best way to protect your car from loss or damage is to keep it locked up in your garage. And that's about as relevant and appropriate as you extending the argument to include driving recklessly. This was what you said:

"So if you drive when you know you should not have ventured out, and you damage your own vehicle, the insurer could - in theory - refuse to pay out."

It's that which I challenged. Nothing to do with reckless driving but simply "venturing out". I reiterate, no insurer would use the clause you mention simply because somebody "ventured out" in bad weather.

[Arrods]

New Judge - You took issue with:

"So if you drive when you know you should not have ventured out, and you damage your own vehicle, the insurer could - in theory - refuse to pay out."

I did say if you knew "you should not have ventured out". That smacks to me of potentially being reckless or at least taking an unnecessary risk which, in theory, could lead to a repudiation.

The condition is there for a reason and, as I said before, I'm simply highlighting its existence.