So what exactly is insurance for? Car dealer left £250,000 out of pocket after VW Golf hits stock in police pursuit.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

ringway

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,832
Location
In a World of My Own.
Car
2017 Audi RS6 Avant Performance Edition. Range Rover Supercharged - Lovely!
Bosses at a used car dealership say the business has been left £250,000 out of pocket after cars parked on its forecourt were smashed up by a VW Golf that was involved in a high-speed police chase.

The collision caused significant damage to an £80,000 Mercedes C63s AMG as well as an Audi RS5 worth roughly £72,000 and two Mercedes A45 AMGs worth about £60,000 each.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Full article here. LINK.
 
😩
 
Is it because the accident didn’t happen on the public highway, asking for a friend :rolleyes:
 
Surely the dealership’s insurance should cover that and then pursue the driver of the stolen car in a civil court for whatever they can recover ?

If the dealership is carrying stock of that value without proper cover then they deserve everything they got.
 
I think the insurance will cover exactly what it says in the small print and what the dealership paid for.
 
Motor trade insurance could pay out, if he bought the correct cover.
If he thought he did, but didn't, he has a conversation with his broker......

Given the decent calibre of stock, presuming he bought comp stock cover with AD cover, policy will pay, unless he was supposed to have some form of impact protection but didn't (albeit no road side bollard or barrier would have stopped that damage)

I do hope the little darlings in the crashed car were okay and are offered legal advice after we pay all their medical bills:mad::devil:
 
Very odd that the insurer is refusing to pay out because the police closed the case. I don't understand what type of cover the business had.
 
I do hope the little darlings in the crashed car were okay and are offered legal advice after we pay all their medical bills:mad::devil:

Not your average teenage joyriders:

West Yorkshire Police has confirmed the occupants of the car were a 42-year-old man and a 31-year-old man.

They were fleeing having been arrested on suspicion of offences of dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, failing to provide a specimen, possession of an offensive weapon and drugs offences.
 
So the CPS closed the case because of lack of evidence. This has to be for the drug offenses etc. The causing a collision happened in front of the cops and they arrested them. It does not mention that the driver was driving without a license or insurance so can they not claim off his insurance?

Sounds like the trader's insurance company aren't getting the driver's details to pursue but surely they have a car and registration (providing not stolen but it doesn't say anywhere that it was) so they have an avenue to claim? The insurance doesn't want to pay out and chase the 3rd party as it will be a ball ache without more information from the police.

If the trader has the correct insurance, I would take it to the financial ombudsman and/or other governing body
 
I watch the traffic cops type of programmes and it's butt-clenching stuff when a pursuit starts in case someone or something gets hurt.

If I had my way, it would be a mandatory 2 year jail sentance for trying to flee the police in a motor vehicle.
This would save lives and money.
 
Pity the lowlife scrotes in that crash were still alive to be arrested, really. I have zero tolerance or sympathy for people like that, as indeed they have for those who suffer as a result of their actions.
 
Having read the article and if it is factual, initially I held the police responsible. However, 2nd thoughts, its the insurance co. The car co should take the insurance court. Having stated that, I', sure there are different levels of insurance for trade just like for the ordinary person and there may be a clause there that covers fire and theft but not criminal damage.
The garage should speak to the chief of police and their mp before throwing money on legal fees.
 
Having read the article and if it is factual, initially I held the police responsible. However, 2nd thoughts, its the insurance co. The car co should take the insurance court. Having stated that, I', sure there are different levels of insurance for trade just like for the ordinary person and there may be a clause there that covers fire and theft but not criminal damage.
The garage should speak to the chief of police and their mp before throwing money on legal fees.

I an dealing with insurance for the business, and I can tell you that it's fiendishly difficult to ensure that all eventualities are covered and to a sufficient amount. The insurer might have gotten off on a technicality in the policy. Perhpas the cap for criminal damage was too low, etc. But definitely any trader should have cover for stock for such an eventually.
 
Hi , from my experience in the motor trade I provided cover for all vehicles in my care.( In my care is the important wording here )

It could come down to the fact of who owns the vehicles , the garage , the bank or another third party.

In my case I had a direct line to my insurers ( not via brokers ) and I had to provide a value breakdown every month and paid the premium in arrears every 12 months.
 
I am working on thatroad, full of high profile AMG style stock again.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom