- This topic has 28 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
- Topic
Hypothetical one this but…….
Plenty of stranded cars here in the SW last few days where people have risked driving through flood water and severely damaged their engine.
Most (if not all) insurers will understandably refuse to pay out as it’s “avoidable” but what happens to a Motability customer in such an instance?
- Replies
I don’t think the waters will part for Motability customers, sorry.
If you wilfully destroy your car, don’t expect to get another.
Skoda Enyaq Race Blue
Most (if not all) insurers will understandably refuse to pay out as it’s “avoidable”
Do you know this is a ‘fact’ or are you making an assumption?
A lot of the time people drive into water, stop when they realise it is too deep. They then reverse and it goes up the exhaust straight into the engine.
Ultimately it will depend on the wording set out in the insurance policy and whether you have fully comp or third party fire and theft.
Unavoidable flood damage – damage that caused by no fault of your own.
Avoidable flood damage – would include, driving through water, ignoring flood signs or driving against weather warnings, would as likely be classes knowingly putting your vehicle at risk.
However, nothing is clear cut, with the likelyhood of accidental damage covering damage to the vehicle
It is entirely hypothetical unless another member has done this.
However, Motability are very careful to leave any insurance problems for the customer to deal directly with Direct Line. I fail to think why anyone would be treated any differently because they are a Motability customer.
But willful damage to the car, no doubt if Direct Line washes their hands of the claim, then the customer would be liable for the full cost of the vehicle.
No doubt that scenario will be in the agreement document you signed on the vehicle lease.
Ultimately it will depend on the wording set out in the insurance policy and whether you have fully comp or third party fire and theft. Unavoidable flood damage – damage that caused by no fault of your own. Avoidable flood damage – would include, driving through water, ignoring flood signs or driving against weather warnings, would as likely be classes knowingly putting your vehicle at risk. However, nothing is clear cut, with the likelyhood of accidental damage covering damage to the vehicle
This is the thing. If someone ignores a ‘Road Closed – Flooding’ sign and weaves around the barriers then an insurer may have something to say about it. However, I suspect that most issues occur when people are either parked and waters rise, or they drive along an unfamiliar road and unwittingly end up in difficulty. The problem with flood water is that you cannot tell whether it’s is a few inches or several feet deep and whilst I have never been in this position myself, I can’t see how insurers could wriggle out of paying out in these scenarios.
@glos guy
Insurance companies will use any excuse as a get out clause. But you are correct, its a grey area.
Nowaday everyone will record the one who tries to go through water and put it on Fail Army for all to see.
Most (if not all) insurers will understandably refuse to pay out as it’s “avoidable”
Do you know this is a ‘fact’ or are you making an assumption?
If you read most T&Cs it is fact (hence my use of the word avoidable, a direct quote from some I looked at).
I fully expected it not to be covered but just wondered how they would go about claiming the cost of the vehicle from a customer.
The approach generally taken by insurance companies is that if there is signage warning of a flooded road or risk of flooding they will NOT pay out. Otherwise they will.
Obviously it goes without saying that its important to get some photos of the approach to where the flooding occurred to help with proving there was no signage (much easier these days with phone cameras and dashcams).
Also I should say that there will always be the exception to this rule to prove me wrong!!
The common sense idea, is you should stop, get out and try to guage the depth of the water. If in doubt turn around and go another route, especially if your not familiar with the area
If you choose to proceed, enter the water in a low gear, idealy 1st or 2nd at crawling pace. Speed up to 5mph once you have entered creating a bow wave, the exhaust gasses will stop the water entering your engine and remember a foot of water is enough to float your car down stream. Keep that engine rev’s high even slipping the cluch high and what ever you do do not stall.
If in doubt fit a snorkel, a back flow device or raised exhaust extention ?
LV seem to advertise how to go through flood water?
https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/10-tips-to-help-protect-your-car-from-flood-damage
First hand experience here.
Yes they’ll fix it (new engine), or write it off, new car.
No I wasn’t in the car, yes the driver has a new found fear of puddles.
I’m sure they keep a record but it didn’t impede me getting a new car on the scheme.
"Come on BYD Seal!"I think most companies will pay if you’re unlucky enough for it to happen when not in the car.
My question was more if you cause it by driving through floodwater.
A lot of flood water could be avoided if the authorities dredged the rivers and maintained ditches. Also there doesn’t seem to be any teams of manual seasonal road sweepers anymore or even the odd lorry sweeper that kept the storm drains clear from blocking which leads to deep puddles on our roads in heavy rain.
If floods on our roads weren’t bad enough, most of us on a good day spend a lot of time trying to avoid pot holes. Why is there enough tarmac to make speed humps, but not enough to fill the pot holes?
Most (if not all) insurers will understandably refuse to pay out as it’s “avoidable”
Do you know this is a ‘fact’ or are you making an assumption?
If you read most T&Cs it is fact (hence my use of the word avoidable, a direct quote from some I looked at). I fully expected it not to be covered but just wondered how they would go about claiming the cost of the vehicle from a customer.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree. ALL accidents are avoidable. The vast and overwhelming majority are caused by driver error – driving too fast for the conditions, driving too fast full stop, not keeping an adequate stopping distance, not paying attention to surroundings, pulling into the path of other vehicles etc etc etc yet insurance companies pay out.
The only scenarios that I am aware of where insurers will automatically fail to pay out are in scenarios where the driver is impaired to the point that they are prosecuted (drink or drug driving etc).
As I said previously, anybody stupid enough to drive around road closure barriers and get into difficulty is going to have a real problem. In reality the battle would end up being between the insurer and Motability (as we don’t own the car) but the driver could expect to lose their Motability entitlement. However, anyone inadvertently driving through water that they thought was a few inches deep but turned out to be a problem and they got into difficulty, when there was no road closure warning, would be covered and to suggest otherwise is scare mongering. Adrian’s experience confirms this.
If floods on our roads weren’t bad enough, most of us on a good day spend a lot of time trying to avoid pot holes. Why is there enough tarmac to make speed humps, but not enough to fill the pot holes?
Good point!
I actually passed a grid sucker lorry and a dinky toy road sweeper today on the same road.
Why is there enough tarmac to make speed humps, but not enough to fill the pot holes?
I ruddy hate speed bumps. I have an abscess in the small of my back at present and yesterday I had to drive along a road that had loads of speed bumps. Going over every single one of them caused me pain and it made me think how problematic they must be for people with permanent spinal issues. I also feel really sorry for people who have them outside their houses, with the constant noise of vehicles bumping over them, especially lorries and trucks with loose loads.
The lack of attention to pot holes is supposedly symptomatic of funding challenges, yet local authorities can somehow always find money to install traffic management schemes that seem to do nothing but irritate people and make life harder for individuals and businesses.
I think if it was on the lorry then it might have been ok crossing the puddle ??
For context she followed someone through and someone came the other way at the same time causing something of a bow wave. Car was only 6 months old at the time but went on to be one of my favourite cars.
Except for the wheels but that’s another story.
"Come on BYD Seal!" I think if it was on the lorry then it might have been ok crossing the puddle 
For context she followed someone through and someone came the other way at the same time causing something of a bow wave. Car was only 6 months old at the time but went on to be one of my favourite cars. Except for the wheels but that’s another story.The idea is to drive through slowly creating a small bow wave, which pushes the water away from you. Drive to fast, the risk of creating a large bow wave, which has the potential to either come back at you or the wake has the potential of creating an oncoming wave to the person driving behind. Vehicles comming in both direction at the same time has the potential of flooding the smaller vehicle.
Think of shipping as ahip pushing the the water and effect of the wave created by its bow and wake waves behind the ship send smaller boats bobbing all over the place.
A bow wave will, yes, push water away but its main help is causing a trough in the engine bay which helps to keep water out of the electrical/air intake components. If the depth of the water is up to grill level and you can get the speed right it will lower the water level in the engine compartment considerably.
The main problem when wading through deeper water especially small lighter cars is traction. If the water is really deep usually the back end will start to float first, then the driver will back off the driver then loses momentum, engine bay then floods.
I was not, and cannot stress this enough, not in the car
I understood, you were not in the car at the time ?
About 5yr ago a fiat 500 from memory overtake the cars wanting to turn around, not wanting to go under a railway bridge, where the road dipped and was flooded. In splashed the Fiat 500, the funny bit, once it got under the bridge the car started to float and proceeded to hit the footpath railing the other side of the road. What made it even funnier is, all the college kids who were out at the time started to take pics and video the poor muppet in the car!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.