Some time ago it was feasible to for an insurance company to pay a motor claim that would have otherwise been declined, simply because the claimant had been a long term and loyal client to the company. Even today it is not inconceivable that an insurance company will make a decision to pay a claim on commercial grounds, for example where the claimant is a very major and highly profitable client. However the days of paying out a claim in order to treat a long-term client decently, are long gone and many clients risk having claims declined.

When a vehicle is on contract hire, the contract hire company owns the vehicle but the hirer insures it. Therefore when an insurance company refuses to pay a claim, the hirer becomes responsible and contract hire companies are seeing this happen more frequently. In the case of minor accidents, insurance companies rarely look too closely at the circumstances. However in the event of a serious accident, it makes very sound financial sense for the insurance company to examine the circumstances of the accident and take a close look at the driver. An insurance company is answerable to its shareholders and its shareholders would not appreciate it paying out claims when it has good grounds for refusing to do so.

Many companies with company cars are not aware that the motor insurer's terms and condition state that a vehicle must not be modified in any way, without advising them of the changes. It is for this reason safer to fit the manufacturer's recommended tyres, with the correct speed rating. It is important that employees understand that they must not change or modify their company vehicle in any way, in order not to run the risk of invalidating the insurance. Some employers have discovered, following an accident, that an employee has done what is know as "chip" the company vehicle's engine. This has the effect of increasing the car's horsepower. The insurer will often, with justification, refuse to pay out a claim, because the car is more powerful than the vehicle they understood they were insuring. It also causes another problem in that it can invalidate the car's warranty. In this eventuality it could cause the contract hire or leasing company to make a claim against the hirer; if the vehicle were for example on two years contract hire, then the hirer would be returning the vehicle without its third year warranty.

Also the company car must be kept in a roadworthy condition. If a company vehicle is on contract hire, then there is usually not much to worry about; it will on average be less than two years old and regularly serviced and maintained. In a case where a company buys and keeps it's vehicles for longer than the typical contract hire term, maybe four or five years, then ensuring they are, in what an insurance company would consider is a roadworthy condition, can be more difficult. The risk of a vehicle developing a fault that could make it un-roadworthy generally increases, the higher the mileage.

It is not only lack of maintenance that can cause a vehicle to be un roadworthy, it can often be a failing on the part of the driver; incorrect tyre pressure is the most common reason. Driving with the tyres incorrectly inflated can be very dangerous, particularly if the roads are wet. If one of the company vehicles is in an accident and the accident is of a serious nature, then the insurance company will normally check the vehicle's roadworthiness. Of course if another motorist were clearly at fault then the insurer would have no reason to check the condition of the vehicle.

If the circumstances of the accident were different, if say your employee's vehicle skidded and crashed into another vehicle or failed to negotiate a bend and crashed, then it is quite possible that the insurer will carry out various checks on the vehicle, to ensure that it was roadworthy. Driving with the incorrect tyre pressure can be very dangerous; it can affect braking, steering, road holding and the general stability of the car. Employee's need to be advised that they must check their tyre pressure on a regular basis, tyres are best checked when they are cold. The incorrect tyre pressure apart from the increased risk of having an accident will also significantly increase your overall fuel bill.

Tyres do need to be checked for wear; probably the most practical option is to make the employee responsible. It is after all his car and his life that is at risk if he drives the vehicle in an un- roadworthy condition. The period between servicing intervals nowadays can be very long indeed. Previously, when a typical servicing interval was 12,000 miles, companies used to rely on the dealership's servicing department telling them if a tyre needed changing. That is no longer a practical option; indeed some would question whether it is ever a practical option, to rely on a servicing department, because they do appear to have a habit of changing tyres before they need to be changed.

Many company bosses seem unaware or unconcerned, of the risks posed by of a company car being uninsured due to employees driving whilst in excess of the legal alcohol limit, Insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out on a claim, if the driver is under the influence of alcohol. In spite of all the evidence as to how alcohol affects psychomotor skills, there are a hard core of offenders who believe that this does not apply to them and that their years of drinking and driving has allowed them to master driving whilst drunk. There is some evidence to suggest that this not so much the younger driver but often men in their 50's. 19% of car accidents that result in a death are believed to involve alcohol. Sadly the death is often not the drunk driver but an innocent pedestrian, another motorist or sometimes children. Employers that make it very clear to their employees that they can be instantly dismissed if they drink and drive are not only helping to avoid the company car being involved in an accident without insurance cover but possibly also saving a life.

The same will apply if the employee is under the influence of drugs. The company should also take into account that an employee may be taking a prescription drug that could affect their ability to drive safely. It would perhaps not be unreasonable for a company to check with an employee if they feel this could be the case. With the new legislation that comes into force in April 2008, the company is responsible for ensuring that its employees are safe when driving on company business.

Employees should also be told that they must not, however cold the weather is, go out and start the car and leave the engine running to warm the car up. However comfortable this may make the drive into work, it is highly risky; if someone got into the car and drove off, as has happened many times, the insurance company will not pay out for a vehicle stolen under these circumstances. The same applies if an employee leaves the keys in the car at a petrol station whilst they go to the cash desk.

If the company vehicles are to be insured whilst on the road, the driver must have a valid driving licence. There are many employers that believe that taking a photocopy of an employee's driving licence is all that is necessary. Some have never seen the original and accept a photocopy provided by the employee, only to discover following an accident, that the employee had been previously disqualified.

If a company's vehicles are sourced through a broker, the larger and well established contract hire brokers are able to offer a service where they regularly check the employee's driving licences. They can be checked when they are first employed and then at regular intervals, to make sure there are no new convictions. Once employees are aware this system is in place they are much more likely to come forward and declare a new conviction. Apart from protecting the company as far as it's insurance is concerned; it also affords it protection from prosecution under the new legislation.

If an insurer rejects a claim, it does not necessarily follow that they have acted correctly. There have been many such decisions by insurance companies, which have subsequently been overturned by the Financial Ombudsman, the body that deals with disputes or complaints against insurance companies. In a case that involved one of our clients, the insurance company refused to settle a claim in excess of 60,000 following a car jacking. They justified this because the vehicle did not have tracker fitted, in spite of the fact that they had told the client on many occasions that it was a requirement. The client, who disagreed with the insurer's decision, called in an expert. The expert said that whilst the insurer had told the client he must have Tracker fitted, they had not written to the client and told him they were no longer providing cover. The expert's views were made known to the company and the claim was settled in full, soon after.

In summary it can help to avoid claims being declined by observing the following: Ensure that the vehicle is properly and regularly maintained; Tyre pressures should be checked at least every two weeks, preferably when cold; No modifications should be made to a vehicle, without informing the insurance company; Drivers must take action if a warning light is illuminated; Employees should be warned of the dangers of driving whilst in excess of the legal limit for alcohol consumption; Drugs, including prescription drugs, can affect a driver's ability to drive safely. Drug testing is now used by some companies, up to 80% of large US companies test for drugs, although there are concerns regarding false positives; Vehicles should never be left unattended, with the engine running; Use one of the specialist companies or a contract hire broker to regularly check employee's driving licences. Observing these points will at least help to avoid motor insurance claims being repudiated

Negligence on the part of the driver can often be the cause of an insurer declining a claim. The was a case reported in America where a gentleman having purchased a motor home, set off on a trip and once on the open road, engaged cruise control and left the controls to make a drink. His understanding of cruise control was that the vehicle drove on its own. Of course the insurance company declined to pay for the subsequent damage, after the vehicle crashed, however he was able to successfully sue the motor home manufacturer, claiming that they should have told him that cruise control doesn't drive the vehicle for you.