I know it’s a minefield and I am not an insurance expert but I have just been talking to a women driver who wanted to know her entitlement to a hire car; she was very distressed with the progress of her car insurance accident claim. Very often we find that the policy stated entitlement to a hire car is too short a period whilst a car is either repaired or the woman needs to buy a replacement – clearly this is a way to cut back on operating costs and reduce premiums/increase profits?
In this instance I was talking about an apparent ‘no fault’ situation ie where the motorist had been asked to pay for costs which she thought were unfair.
The legal precedent here is Clark v Ardington (2002) where female motorist Mrs Clark was driving her Vauxhall when it was hit from behind by a vehicle from Ardington Electrical Services. The case was to do with who should pay for the vehicle hire for Mrs Clark when the accident car repair took longer than it should have done, according to the insurance policy wording ie its terms and conditions. Should it be the motorist or the insurer (to then reclaim this from the guilty party). There were added complications because she had asked her husband to sort it all out for her and perhaps one thought the other had done something and so on.
On this occasion the Court of Appeal determined that Mrs Clark had done nothing wrong and that she should be put back in the same financial position as she was before the accident damage took place. The actual wording of the judgment was
“the fundamental principle is that a person whose car has been damaged is entitled to compensation for the loss caused. In a case where such loss includes loss of use and he (she) establishes a need for a replacement, he (she) is entitled to the cost of hiring a replacement car. He (she) can go round to the nearest car hire company and is prima facie entitled to recover the amount charged whether or not the charge is at the top of the range of car hire rates. However the basic principle is qualified by the duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances.”
As I see it, the emphasis as always is on behaviour that is reasonable BUT any innocent female motorist should not be held liable in these circumstances by a motor insurer if delays to the repair of her vehicle take longer than expected for reasons outside her reasonable control.
She should, however, do her best to minimise these costs ie to choose a comparable car to hire, not the top of the range just because it was there.
But the problem is that many insurers will hide behind their policy wording and use junior staff to try to fend off any claims outside the written word no matter their reasonableness. That’s a summary of FOXY’s experience at least…
Whereas car insurance providers for women who go that extra mile can actively demonstrate providing more than the policy states – that surely adds to customer loyalty and is by far the wiser business strategy in the long term…
If you are shopping for female friendly car insurance soon, you can find out more about female feedback about car insurance for women here.
FOXY