Beware the language used in motor insurance

MOTOR RETAILERS regularly have enticing offers to attract potential buyers. Many are funded by the manufacturers. This can often be the case with ancillary but still vehicle-related benefits such as breakdown cover and car insurance.

To save time and certainly expense, one of the most appealing carrots is to be offered complimentary motor insurance for a year. VW has offered such a feature but – tucked away in the small print – is the requirement that no claim is outstanding with the driver’s current policy.

Yet any former claim may be for an entirely innocent matter such as damage by a third party. A more thoughtful approach would score dividends and show that an offer was as genuine as it could be made.

Frequently motor policies are full of otiose language. Words to slide out of responsibility are to be expected. However, VW and its insurer could overcome such a negative start if it covered the new premium that had to be purchased once a claim under the former car’s policy had been settled on a ‘no fault’ basis.

It does not require a clever epistolary document but a pithy confirmation that the offer will be fulfilled once proof is provided.

Both the manufacturer’s insurance company and its administrator walked away from giving such help. Instead it referred new customers caught up in such a tangle to an ‘introducer’ company. In this case, it was Alpha Insurance A/S, based in Denmark.

The case worsens as the latter had ceased trading with outstanding claims handled by Denmark’s version of the Financial Services Authority.

Neither VW nor the company it paid for the insurance accept any responsibility which is nonsense.

Each respectively funded and wrote the motor cover. The ‘introducer’ would not have existed without their financial support.

To now expect car buyers to seek compensation from a regulatory sink-fund is appalling.