Does anybody else tow a Swift Challenger 540 with a 53 plate 2.2 dCi sport X Trail? Last month we had a bad accident and wrote off the 'Van. It was down to a blowout. The CC are now declining to insure the 'van because they say it was a 'snaking accident' and the car/van ratio is 98% The websites and I say it's 84%. Anybody else had problems?
'53 Nissan X Trail / '08 Swift challenger 540
- Thread starter Bigfoot
- Start date
Hello bigfoot,
Very sorry to read of your incident and the CC's. attitude to your claim.
Cearly I do not have access to all the incident reports and statemsnts, nor do I have CC insurance so I cant check policy details my self, but I am left wondering about the your situation.
Let us take the factual aspect first of all, My sources do not include the Xtrail 2.2dCi data so i will assume it is similar to the 2.2TDi, which has a quoted KW of 1520 and max tow of 2000Kg. The only Challenger 540 seems to be a 2007 model with an MTPLM of 1480.
Based on those figures the ratio comes out at 97%. However the caravan is well within the cars legal max towing weight.
The other point about snaking is a bit more tricky. You said the outfit sufferd a blow out which I assume then caused the outfit to become uncontrollable. If this is the case than I do not think the CC can resist the claim.
But it seems the CC may be saying that because the outfit snaked it places extra load on the tyres and cause a blow out. The point being that you should not allow it to snake in the first place! They are possibly also implying that because of the poor tow ratio, the outfit is more likely to snake. The truth willbe difficult to prove unless the Police or traffic agency took measurements and position's of skid marks on the road, which can be interpreted
If the CC are placing a limit on their liability determined by a particular ratio which is less than the legal limit, they MUST tell you about it before you take out the insurance, or renew it. They should also ask as part of the proposal for details of the outfit. They cannot retrospectively impose it such a fundamental variation to what is a legal limit. Equally and assuming you told the CC about your outfit, if it fell outside the ratio they permit, why did they accept your proposal when they had no intenti of providing cover? That would be miss selling and is clear breach of the Trades Descriptions Act and the Financial Services Regulations.
I am not a legal expert, and the above is just my opinion on the information you have supplied. I suggest you write to the company along the lines I have outlined and ask the to reconsider the claim, or ask them on what basis as defined in their policy details, they are declining. I also strongly suggest you seek professional legal advice to pursue the issue beyond that.
Dont be put off by the fact that insurance companies are supposed to know what they are doing, I have heard of several cases where drivers have had their claims upheld where the insurers had previously declined.
Very sorry to read of your incident and the CC's. attitude to your claim.
Cearly I do not have access to all the incident reports and statemsnts, nor do I have CC insurance so I cant check policy details my self, but I am left wondering about the your situation.
Let us take the factual aspect first of all, My sources do not include the Xtrail 2.2dCi data so i will assume it is similar to the 2.2TDi, which has a quoted KW of 1520 and max tow of 2000Kg. The only Challenger 540 seems to be a 2007 model with an MTPLM of 1480.
Based on those figures the ratio comes out at 97%. However the caravan is well within the cars legal max towing weight.
The other point about snaking is a bit more tricky. You said the outfit sufferd a blow out which I assume then caused the outfit to become uncontrollable. If this is the case than I do not think the CC can resist the claim.
But it seems the CC may be saying that because the outfit snaked it places extra load on the tyres and cause a blow out. The point being that you should not allow it to snake in the first place! They are possibly also implying that because of the poor tow ratio, the outfit is more likely to snake. The truth willbe difficult to prove unless the Police or traffic agency took measurements and position's of skid marks on the road, which can be interpreted
If the CC are placing a limit on their liability determined by a particular ratio which is less than the legal limit, they MUST tell you about it before you take out the insurance, or renew it. They should also ask as part of the proposal for details of the outfit. They cannot retrospectively impose it such a fundamental variation to what is a legal limit. Equally and assuming you told the CC about your outfit, if it fell outside the ratio they permit, why did they accept your proposal when they had no intenti of providing cover? That would be miss selling and is clear breach of the Trades Descriptions Act and the Financial Services Regulations.
I am not a legal expert, and the above is just my opinion on the information you have supplied. I suggest you write to the company along the lines I have outlined and ask the to reconsider the claim, or ask them on what basis as defined in their policy details, they are declining. I also strongly suggest you seek professional legal advice to pursue the issue beyond that.
Dont be put off by the fact that insurance companies are supposed to know what they are doing, I have heard of several cases where drivers have had their claims upheld where the insurers had previously declined.
John,
Thanks for your response. I think perhaps you get the impression that the CC has refused to honour the policey. That is not the case, they have settled and the new 'Van is being prepared. The problem is that because the claim has been settled the policy is now void. I contacted them to insure the new van and they have declined to do so on the grounds that the van/car match is 97%. Nissan do not give details of the X Trails KW so I insured it on the grounds that 'What towcar.com' give a match for this outfit of 84-88 %.
I will have to take it to a weighbridge
Hello again BF,
Your response has added more information. I am pleased that he insurance did pay out, so the did honour the policy, but you are now having trouble insuring your new caravan.
Clearly you now have a history of a claim, and that always prejudices an insurers view, on the basis that if the circumstances surrounding the claim continue unchanged, its happened once so it is likely to happen again.
Sadly they don
Your response has added more information. I am pleased that he insurance did pay out, so the did honour the policy, but you are now having trouble insuring your new caravan.
Clearly you now have a history of a claim, and that always prejudices an insurers view, on the basis that if the circumstances surrounding the claim continue unchanged, its happened once so it is likely to happen again.
Sadly they don
A point I was wondering about is what does Bigfoot do for insurance now.
Will he be in a bit of a tricky position as one of the questions that you are normally asked is have you ever been refused insurance before.
So does this refusal by the CC have to be mentioned if asked.
I know you may think that lightening doesn't strike twice but!!
Will he be in a bit of a tricky position as one of the questions that you are normally asked is have you ever been refused insurance before.
So does this refusal by the CC have to be mentioned if asked.
I know you may think that lightening doesn't strike twice but!!
Youre right of course Slowcoach. As all insurers share info I will declare it in any case. I contacted cover4caravans..they took details and said they'd ring back and didn't.
I'm off to the public weighbridge tomorrow AM. Watch this space.
Regards,
BF
Well,
Just back from public weighbridge.
53 plate x-trail sport in running order (driver,75% fuel,awning & poles weighing 25Kg) 1790Kg.
towing a swift challenger 540 with a miro of 1290 and MTPLW of 1500 makes 72.346% and 83.798% respectively. Well within the legal limit and within the CC recommendation of 85%.
Goodbye CC...will be insuring with a well known company oft mentioned on this forum who could be bothered to listen.
Just back from public weighbridge.
53 plate x-trail sport in running order (driver,75% fuel,awning & poles weighing 25Kg) 1790Kg.
towing a swift challenger 540 with a miro of 1290 and MTPLW of 1500 makes 72.346% and 83.798% respectively. Well within the legal limit and within the CC recommendation of 85%.
Goodbye CC...will be insuring with a well known company oft mentioned on this forum who could be bothered to listen.
Thought the 85% ratio was worked out with the Kerb weight of the tow vehicle not including the driver, 75% full fuel, awning parts. How can a car manufacturer state a kerb weight with the above included? Kerb weight is as it left the factory with all oils, water and two gallons of fuel. No doubt I will be wrong
I agree with your logic, I've measured the KW in accordance with EU directive 95/48/EC as quoted on p137 of November's PC mag. In any case I reckon the outfit is a good match.
Regards
I agree your outfit should be aroud the 84% figure, a work collegue has the same reg/model X Trail towing a Sterling Eccles Amathyst
Hi Bigfoot
I've been with the CC insurance for years and cannot once remember them asking me what tow car I use.
If we could see the wording of the "declinature" letter to renew we may be able to decide if the CC insurers are taking an unreasonable approach. Most policy of insurance cary a due diligence condition but I have never seen one where "85%" is a rule as opposed to we know to be merely a guideline.
Was there more to this accident than you are telling us? Sorry to sound invasive but something is not quite right from you have said so far. Were you speeding?
Were any of the tyres defective?
Were the police involved? If so have you seen their report?
An Insurers refusal to renew a policy of Insurance is a very serious matter and they must be able to demonstrate a tangible reason, well within the law. They will know full well such a declinature will cause you great problems in insuring elsewhere because of the rules of disclosure.
Cheers
Alan
I've been with the CC insurance for years and cannot once remember them asking me what tow car I use.
If we could see the wording of the "declinature" letter to renew we may be able to decide if the CC insurers are taking an unreasonable approach. Most policy of insurance cary a due diligence condition but I have never seen one where "85%" is a rule as opposed to we know to be merely a guideline.
Was there more to this accident than you are telling us? Sorry to sound invasive but something is not quite right from you have said so far. Were you speeding?
Were any of the tyres defective?
Were the police involved? If so have you seen their report?
An Insurers refusal to renew a policy of Insurance is a very serious matter and they must be able to demonstrate a tangible reason, well within the law. They will know full well such a declinature will cause you great problems in insuring elsewhere because of the rules of disclosure.
Cheers
Alan
Bigfoot
Did the CC relace your caravan new for old?
If so then they put you in an impossible situation.
Did the CC relace your caravan new for old?
If so then they put you in an impossible situation.
Alan
I have heard that the CC will not cover you if you have had a previous snaking claim ata ratio above 85%.
I found this out when I phoned to inform them that I had increased the MPTLM of my van while insured by them.
I have heard that the CC will not cover you if you have had a previous snaking claim ata ratio above 85%.
I found this out when I phoned to inform them that I had increased the MPTLM of my van while insured by them.
I am rather worried after reading these posts as I have taken out my insurance with the CC as they didnt stipulate where the van could be stored and as its a twin axle van I had problems with other companies who wouldnt insure us unless we had it stored on a CASSOA site. They didnt ask me what towcar we had and no mention of the 85% rule?? We are towing above the 85% rule as my hubby is an experienced tower, however, we have not exceeded the 100% rule so are you saying that we are not insured if we have a snake and the van is written off??
Hi cheryl the problem is the CC has paid out othe claim but refuses to reinsure the outfit due to circumstanses of the high ratio between van & tug leaving one in the position of "having cover refused" when seeking new cover
Facebook
Twitter