tow car options

[ProfJohnL]

I think they can make their own T&Cs as the clause is nto an unfair clause and if the caravan is manufactuered with a MTPLM which is at a fixed value surely they do not have to prove whether the 95% was exceeded or not as they can use the value on the sticker?
It would probably be up to the consumer to prove that caravan did not exceed 95% of the car's kerbweight. Car insurance only pays for third party claims and not for th caravan that may have been damaged, but we all know that anyway? Best is to be careful.

Becasue this policy is for CARAVAN insurance not CAR insurance, I agree they can probably write their own T&C's. There are probably no regulations that specific set out how caravan insurance policies should be offered beyond regulations that cover general insurance.

But the policy would need to come under unfair contracts and as such policy T&C's do need to be fair and workable.

The way the cause is written is specifically says
" if Your Caravan weighs in excess of 95% of the towing vehicle’s kerb weight." There are two criteria it relies on - The weight of the towed caravan and the kerbweight of the tow vehicle.

You cannot know the weight of an object unless it is measured.

How many times have wee seen caravanners struggling to find their cars kerbweight. Some can't be found, and often when they have checked them on a weigh bridge how different the measured value is compared to the ex works value becasue of things like the addition of standard equipment and things like towbars etc,

Basically the clause is unworkable as neither of the criteria they specify can be determined easily or accurately.

If the insurance company tried to use the clause to reduce or stop a payout and they based their calculation on the MTPLM of a manufacturers kerbweight figure, the policy holder could legitimately argue that the criteria are not set out in the policy.

 

[Raywood]

The Ombudsman can rule on policy conditions and find in favour of the insured party if the clause is regarded as unfair. If the insurer can show a good reason for the clause then it would be regarded as fair although unless it is made clear in the literature and not just in the exclusions it may fail again there.
The problem with this though is the wording, as in almost any case unless the MTPLM exceeds 95% of the cars kerb weight, or they weigh both, they cannot show the exclusion applies. The clause is virtually unenforceable as it stands. I suspect though that when they realise this it will change. They do need to define kerb weight as there are several definitions of this.

 

[Buckman]

The Ombudsman can rule on policy conditions and find in favour of the insured party if the clause is regarded as unfair. If the insurer can show a good reason for the clause then it would be regarded as fair although unless it is made clear in the literature and not just in the exclusions it may fail again there.
The problem with this though is the wording, as in almost any case unless the MTPLM exceeds 95% of the cars kerb weight, or they weigh both, they cannot show the exclusion applies. The clause is virtually unenforceable as it stands. I suspect though that when they realise this it will change. They do need to define kerb weight as there are several definitions of this.

Either way it was in the T&Cs which the consumer should have read before agreeing to the contract so not sure how it can be deemed an unfair term? If the consumer was nto happy with the T&Cs they had the option to go elsewhere.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The Ombudsman can rule on policy conditions and find in favour of the insured party if the clause is regarded as unfair. If the insurer can show a good reason for the clause then it would be regarded as fair although unless it is made clear in the literature and not just in the exclusions it may fail again there.
The problem with this though is the wording, as in almost any case unless the MTPLM exceeds 95% of the cars kerb weight, or they weigh both, they cannot show the exclusion applies. The clause is virtually unenforceable as it stands. I suspect though that when they realise this it will change. They do need to define kerb weight as there are several definitions of this.

Ray I understand what you re suggesting, but in this specific case the wording is very clear if the caravan weighs more than 95% .

They cannot substitute a weight limit for a weight if they say weighs. A weight can only be verified by measuring it, and we agree the use of "kerbweight" is so open to interpretation and variation in real life.

The clause is unworkable and if they want to try and enforce it they do need to redefine it with unvariable criteria

 

[Dustydog]

Either way it was in the T&Cs which the consumer should have read before agreeing to the contract so not sure how it can be deemed an unfair term? If the consumer was nto happy with the T&Cs they had the option to go elsewhere.

The Insurer has a Prima Facie obligation to make sure someone telling them they are towing is made fully aware of any specific towing restrictions. Ray is spot on.

 

[ProfJohnL]

This also means you have to tell the caravan insurance company if you change your car,

 

[Buckman]

This also means you have to tell the caravan insurance company if you change your car,

Why as it is none of their business?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Why as it is none of their business?

Most policies include a requirement the policy holder should inform the insurer if there is any material change to the risk being insured. In the case you identified where they will not insure a caravan if it weighs more than 95% of the tow vehicles kerbweight. so the model of tow car becomes a critical factor and the insurer could refuse to pay out if you do not declare the change of tow vehicle and confirm it falls within their criteria.

Its also a consideration if you loan the caravan to a someone else with their own tow car that might not meet the policy requirements.

This 95% clause opens a can of worms.....

 

[Dustydog]

Ray has clearly stated the 95% limit will probably fail . I have to say in 40 years I have never told my caravan Insurers about the identity of my car. Yes Prof agree the clause is unworkable .

 

[Buckman]

Ray has clearly stated the 95% limit will probably fail . I have to say in 40 years I have never told my caravan Insurers about the identity of my car. Yes Prof agree the clause is unworkable .

That may be correct, but does any one want the hassle of engaging expensive solicitors to challenge the wording?

 

[Dustydog]

Answer. Take out a policy without restrictive terms.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Its as bad as being charged with speeding simply becasue your car can go faster than the limit!

 

[Dustydog]

Its as bad as being charged with speeding simply becasue your car can go faster than the limit!

🤪🤪😁😁😁👌