WIDEOPN-X5
Well-known member
AlexYannoulatos said:
Having a senior moment :rollsmile: confusing F30 with the 1 series. My bad :=):
-
Read the WELCOME ALL BMWFANATICS post.
Discovery Insure and My Poor F30
- Thread starter Kaboose
- Start date
Having a senior moment :rollsmile: confusing F30 with the 1 series. My bad :=):
Gizmo
Banned
Looking at the telemetry you were doing 35km/h through a 3 way stop so you didn't stop at the stop street and understeered into the curb. That's how they see it.
Looks to me like the front left tyre was flat or almost flat and caused the understeer into the curb. Looking at the front left wheel was still turned to the right upon impact.
Looks to me like the front left tyre was flat or almost flat and caused the understeer into the curb. Looking at the front left wheel was still turned to the right upon impact.
MikeR
Well-known member
sorry dude... I also find it very hard (looking at the damage to that rim) that this is not a speed problem, and next item ! what is the tire tread like on those tires....They dont care who you are if your tread is not adequate - no payout also.
If your tire came off the rim before hitting the curb there must have been some force as these RFT's are on tight - watch the guys putting those things on you will realise how tight, and besides they are designed to take the punch...see here.
REF:- http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/run_flat_tyres.html
Runflat tyres.
Keep performing even when the pressure drops: runflat tyres keep you mobile even if all tyre pressure is lost. Instead of an unpleasant and unsafe roadside tyre change, you can reach home safely or drive to the next workshop for assistance.
Runflat tyres are their own spares: thanks to specially reinforced side walls and additional lateral strengthening, they continue to perform their function even if all air pressure is lost. The heat-resistant rubber compound is able to withstand additional heat build-up.
With runflat tyres fitted, you can continue driving for up to 150 km at a speed of up to 80 km/h without any significant loss in vehicle stability. You not only save time and stress, you are also free of the need to carry a spare tyre, saving stowage space.
All driver assistants remain fully functional when driving with a loss of tyre pressure. The optional Adaptive Drive system redistributes the load to the other tyres, reducing the burden on the low-pressure tyre as much as possible. The wheel rims of runflat tyres have special design that ensures the tyre will not detach from the rim, even on tight bends.
Runflat tyres provide greater safety, more peace of mind and additional cabin space. It's not surprising that Germany's ADAC, the largest automobile club in the world, has described runflat tyres as the "first important revolution in tyre design since the invention of the pneumatic tyre."
Now after reading that.....I think you might need to re think this matter or get hold of BMW and sue them for their statement, Good luck with that.
:sorry: something else I noticed, that tire is still on the rim, how did you get it back if it came off ???? one would have to use serious air pressure to re inflate in order to pop it back onto the rim lip. :cartel:
If your tire came off the rim before hitting the curb there must have been some force as these RFT's are on tight - watch the guys putting those things on you will realise how tight, and besides they are designed to take the punch...see here.
REF:- http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/run_flat_tyres.html
Runflat tyres.
Keep performing even when the pressure drops: runflat tyres keep you mobile even if all tyre pressure is lost. Instead of an unpleasant and unsafe roadside tyre change, you can reach home safely or drive to the next workshop for assistance.
Runflat tyres are their own spares: thanks to specially reinforced side walls and additional lateral strengthening, they continue to perform their function even if all air pressure is lost. The heat-resistant rubber compound is able to withstand additional heat build-up.
With runflat tyres fitted, you can continue driving for up to 150 km at a speed of up to 80 km/h without any significant loss in vehicle stability. You not only save time and stress, you are also free of the need to carry a spare tyre, saving stowage space.
All driver assistants remain fully functional when driving with a loss of tyre pressure. The optional Adaptive Drive system redistributes the load to the other tyres, reducing the burden on the low-pressure tyre as much as possible. The wheel rims of runflat tyres have special design that ensures the tyre will not detach from the rim, even on tight bends.
Runflat tyres provide greater safety, more peace of mind and additional cabin space. It's not surprising that Germany's ADAC, the largest automobile club in the world, has described runflat tyres as the "first important revolution in tyre design since the invention of the pneumatic tyre."
Now after reading that.....I think you might need to re think this matter or get hold of BMW and sue them for their statement, Good luck with that.
:sorry: something else I noticed, that tire is still on the rim, how did you get it back if it came off ???? one would have to use serious air pressure to re inflate in order to pop it back onto the rim lip. :cartel:
WIDEOPN-X5
Well-known member
You took photos of the scene.
How long after the accident were these taken?
Judging by the score marks on the road it appears fairly soon after? Stone scratches fade quickly after rain and there's been a fair amount of that lately
Having gone to the extent of taking the photos you did, did you get any photos of debris/stones/ oil on the road surface which might have been a contributing factor?
Sorry for the dumb questions but I don't have access to a big screen to look properly at the telemetry you have posted.
The key factor for you to succeed in overturning the insurers decision will be evidence. At the moment it seems it is stacked against you.
How long after the accident were these taken?
Judging by the score marks on the road it appears fairly soon after? Stone scratches fade quickly after rain and there's been a fair amount of that lately
Having gone to the extent of taking the photos you did, did you get any photos of debris/stones/ oil on the road surface which might have been a contributing factor?
Sorry for the dumb questions but I don't have access to a big screen to look properly at the telemetry you have posted.
The key factor for you to succeed in overturning the insurers decision will be evidence. At the moment it seems it is stacked against you.
The 35KM/H / 60K/H is the speed you were going out of the speed limit, so you weren't going 35-60KM/H, but in fact 35KM/H in a 60KM/H zone... Thats why in the parking lot it assumed the speed limit of the main road next to you which is 80KM/H, its too show that you were not exceeding speed limits....
And due to the way civilian GPS systems like this one work, their accuracy is measured in meters, so to measure correct speed and conditions in such a short distance can sometimes create figures that can boggle the mind, by means of random jumps of position....
But taking all those figures into account, and doing the math, using the (26-35 km/h speeds, a 9km/h difference) and the time frame between 00:47:56 and 00:47:58 which is two seconds difference, your average acceleration in that time will be 1.251 meters/second/second which means using that time frame(2s), your initial velocity of 26KM/H, and the acceleration(1.251m/s/s), the distance covered would have been roughly 16.94 meters, but according to the GPS "ODO" in those two seconds you traveled about 60 meters, or according to you 50 meters, which means the GPS speeds are incorrect or the time frame is incorrect, because to cover the full 50 meters in 2 seconds the acceleration would have had to be much quicker OR to cover that distance at the GPS speeds quoted the time frame would have had to be longer... That's using the figures of the CTrack screenshots, the real life situation could have been different...
Hopefully someone can just double check me on that
And in my opinion, they might be trying to assume drunken driving just due to the time stamp (almost one in the morning) and the location of the incident (Outside Elephants and friends), as they might try getting out of paying you out
And due to the way civilian GPS systems like this one work, their accuracy is measured in meters, so to measure correct speed and conditions in such a short distance can sometimes create figures that can boggle the mind, by means of random jumps of position....
But taking all those figures into account, and doing the math, using the (26-35 km/h speeds, a 9km/h difference) and the time frame between 00:47:56 and 00:47:58 which is two seconds difference, your average acceleration in that time will be 1.251 meters/second/second which means using that time frame(2s), your initial velocity of 26KM/H, and the acceleration(1.251m/s/s), the distance covered would have been roughly 16.94 meters, but according to the GPS "ODO" in those two seconds you traveled about 60 meters, or according to you 50 meters, which means the GPS speeds are incorrect or the time frame is incorrect, because to cover the full 50 meters in 2 seconds the acceleration would have had to be much quicker OR to cover that distance at the GPS speeds quoted the time frame would have had to be longer... That's using the figures of the CTrack screenshots, the real life situation could have been different...
Hopefully someone can just double check me on that
And in my opinion, they might be trying to assume drunken driving just due to the time stamp (almost one in the morning) and the location of the incident (Outside Elephants and friends), as they might try getting out of paying you out
Bernard///M3
BMW Car Club Member
Damn that's hectic, can't really help with situation but very interested to find out outcome!
One thing you need to consider for the future is getting yourself a good broker and proper insurance company, not a "medical aid company" who my broker doesn't recommend either!!
I have had a couple of claims for various things in the past, I have never been questioned, my broker sorts out everything and next thing money is in my account!!
Good Luck hope you get it sorted
One thing you need to consider for the future is getting yourself a good broker and proper insurance company, not a "medical aid company" who my broker doesn't recommend either!!
I have had a couple of claims for various things in the past, I have never been questioned, my broker sorts out everything and next thing money is in my account!!
Good Luck hope you get it sorted
Sabretooth tiger
///Member
Kaboose said:
This damage to the front wheel is similar to what I had on my ex car.
I hit the curb at about 100km/h after a truck swerved into my lane. Granted my wheel laid a little more inward, as my control arm snapped as well, and wheel was standing as if the steering wheel was turned left. My tire also never came off the rim, it just had a hole in it (same as yours in the pic).
My best guess is, that your insurance is trying to claim negligence on your part, and its going to be up to you to prove otherwise.
I was with Santam at the time of my accident. No questions asked, car was send to an ARC and repaired. Damage was about R30k.
tman
Well-known member
Discovery insure: "ya, we will put this telematics device on board, its for your safety. "
Meanwhile they use it to their advantage to reject claims.
Am I the only one that avoids Discovery like the plague?
Surely its not wise that one company has so much control over different aspects of your life, be it health insurance, investments, short/long term insurance etc etc.
Just look at history and what happened to people putting all their eggs in one basket in companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers etc.
Now they want to open a bank, and control your money too?! Forget about it. :RedNo:
Back on topic, I really hope you get this sorted, keep us updated.
Meanwhile they use it to their advantage to reject claims.
Am I the only one that avoids Discovery like the plague?
Surely its not wise that one company has so much control over different aspects of your life, be it health insurance, investments, short/long term insurance etc etc.
Just look at history and what happened to people putting all their eggs in one basket in companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers etc.
Now they want to open a bank, and control your money too?! Forget about it. :RedNo:
Back on topic, I really hope you get this sorted, keep us updated.
Sabretooth tiger
///Member
Interesting read:
http://www.iol.co.za/business/personal-finance/vehicle-tracking-data-may-be-used-against-you-1955626
If your car insurance policy is linked to a tracking device that monitors your driving behaviour, find out whether the recorded information may be used by your insurer to repudiate a claim, the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance warns.
To encourage better behaviour behind the wheel, some short-term motor insurers offer a discount on premiums if a record of responsible driving is kept. You are required to install in your car a monitoring device that will record bad driving, such as speeding, harsh accelerating and sudden braking. It will also record good driving.
“However, insurers have taken the use of the driver-monitoring device a step further,” the ombudsman, Dennis Jooste, says. “As the information is recorded and open to scrutiny, the data can be used to validate or repudiate an insurance claim. Some insurers say they will not use the information to repudiate a claim. Consumers are urged to get clarity from the insurer about its policy in this regard.”
Of the increasing number of insurers offering this service, Discovery Insure, for one, insists it won’t use the information against you when you claim. Our current edition of Personal Finance magazine contains an article on the subject, referred to in the industry as telematics (“Backseat driver”, 4th quarter, 2015). In the article, the founder of Discovery Insure, Themba Baloyi, is quoted as saying the use of data against you “should not and could not” happen.
But it is happening in the case of other insurers. In a complaint to Jooste’s office, Mr Y had a “driver behaviour policy” with a particular insurer. The policy required him to have an approved driver-monitoring device installed in his vehicle, and it included specific terms and conditions of cover – for example, it stipulated that bad driving would result in the cancellation of the policy and that information obtained from the tracking device could be used to determine the outcome of a claim.
When he took out the cover, Mr Y was advised by the insurer’s sales representative of the policy terms and conditions and, most importantly, that there would not be cover for any loss resulting from reckless driving.
The conditions stipulated that, if Mr Y was found to have exceeded the speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour in the 60 seconds leading up to an accident, any claim in respect thereof would not be paid. Mr Y accepted the terms and conditions of the policy and had a monitoring device installed in his vehicle.
Subsequently, Mr Y was involved in an accident, and he submitted a claim to his insurer. He reported that he had been driving at less than 60km/h at the time of the collision. However, the report from the tracking company recorded that, on the date of the accident, Mr Y had been travelling between 130 and 140km/h in a 70km/h zone. The speed recorded immediately before the collision was 109km/h, and at the time of impact it was 70km/h. The insurer concluded that Mr Y was speeding at the time of the accident, and it repudiated his claim.
On receiving the complaint, the ombudsman reviewed the travel report, together with the terms and conditions of the policy, and found that Mr Y’s claim clearly fell within an exclusion of the driver behaviour policy.
CONTACT
For short-term insurance complaints, call the office of Dennis Jooste, the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance, on 0860 726 890, or email [email protected]
Taken from Discovery's webiste:
What is the DQ-Track information used for?
The information from your DQ-Track will be used to measure your driving behaviour and track the location of your car in the event of a severe accident.
We will not use information from your DQ-Track when approving claims. The only time we will use the data from your DQ-Track in the claims process is to verify the time and location of an accident.
According to you post they are, so demand them to give you a clearer explanation of why they repudiating your claim.
http://www.iol.co.za/business/personal-finance/vehicle-tracking-data-may-be-used-against-you-1955626
If your car insurance policy is linked to a tracking device that monitors your driving behaviour, find out whether the recorded information may be used by your insurer to repudiate a claim, the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance warns.
To encourage better behaviour behind the wheel, some short-term motor insurers offer a discount on premiums if a record of responsible driving is kept. You are required to install in your car a monitoring device that will record bad driving, such as speeding, harsh accelerating and sudden braking. It will also record good driving.
“However, insurers have taken the use of the driver-monitoring device a step further,” the ombudsman, Dennis Jooste, says. “As the information is recorded and open to scrutiny, the data can be used to validate or repudiate an insurance claim. Some insurers say they will not use the information to repudiate a claim. Consumers are urged to get clarity from the insurer about its policy in this regard.”
Of the increasing number of insurers offering this service, Discovery Insure, for one, insists it won’t use the information against you when you claim. Our current edition of Personal Finance magazine contains an article on the subject, referred to in the industry as telematics (“Backseat driver”, 4th quarter, 2015). In the article, the founder of Discovery Insure, Themba Baloyi, is quoted as saying the use of data against you “should not and could not” happen.
But it is happening in the case of other insurers. In a complaint to Jooste’s office, Mr Y had a “driver behaviour policy” with a particular insurer. The policy required him to have an approved driver-monitoring device installed in his vehicle, and it included specific terms and conditions of cover – for example, it stipulated that bad driving would result in the cancellation of the policy and that information obtained from the tracking device could be used to determine the outcome of a claim.
When he took out the cover, Mr Y was advised by the insurer’s sales representative of the policy terms and conditions and, most importantly, that there would not be cover for any loss resulting from reckless driving.
The conditions stipulated that, if Mr Y was found to have exceeded the speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour in the 60 seconds leading up to an accident, any claim in respect thereof would not be paid. Mr Y accepted the terms and conditions of the policy and had a monitoring device installed in his vehicle.
Subsequently, Mr Y was involved in an accident, and he submitted a claim to his insurer. He reported that he had been driving at less than 60km/h at the time of the collision. However, the report from the tracking company recorded that, on the date of the accident, Mr Y had been travelling between 130 and 140km/h in a 70km/h zone. The speed recorded immediately before the collision was 109km/h, and at the time of impact it was 70km/h. The insurer concluded that Mr Y was speeding at the time of the accident, and it repudiated his claim.
On receiving the complaint, the ombudsman reviewed the travel report, together with the terms and conditions of the policy, and found that Mr Y’s claim clearly fell within an exclusion of the driver behaviour policy.
CONTACT
For short-term insurance complaints, call the office of Dennis Jooste, the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance, on 0860 726 890, or email [email protected]
Taken from Discovery's webiste:
What is the DQ-Track information used for?
The information from your DQ-Track will be used to measure your driving behaviour and track the location of your car in the event of a severe accident.
We will not use information from your DQ-Track when approving claims. The only time we will use the data from your DQ-Track in the claims process is to verify the time and location of an accident.
According to you post they are, so demand them to give you a clearer explanation of why they repudiating your claim.
OK... Here is what I deduce using the pics you posted and relying on 23 years of Traffic experience, and having done hundreds of accident scenes, and also having worked in our accident unit for 3 years, having done accident forensics courses and other stuff...
Not even taking what the Tracker unit said, it is clear that the tyre was off the rim, or maybe not off, but moved away from the side of the rim in such a way, that the rim actually contacted the road surface and scratched it.
The scratches in the road surface is way to deep and consistently spaced to have been gravel, and was most likely caused by the rim contacting the road, and breaking apart as seen in the photo showing the rim damage.
This tells me, like I said, the tyre was exposing the rim, either by un-seeding or by pulling far away from the side. This could have been caused by a flat tyre.
Remember... A tyre monitor system on the BMW might not pick up a slow deflation. So if the tyre went flat, where its supposed to be inflated say 2.5bar, but deflated over a few days slowly to say 1.5bar, the system wouldn't notice it, thus the warning stays off.
With a tyre being flat, it can move around on the rim, and even break seal where its mounted, and thus the rim is more easily exposed, especially in a corner, where the weight of the car as well as the turning action influences the tyre dynamics.
Now... the front wheel hitting the curb first, can for sure happen, either because you steered wide, or most likely in this case, as the front tyre didn't have proper grip due to it being flat, or even already deformed off the rim, thus causing the nose of the car to slide.
Traction control also takes a millisecond to work, and might not have been able to react fast enough to keep the car under control.
I cannot say, as some here did, that you skipped the STOP. It might have been that you pulled away while turning, and then this happened... as I said, I am not even looking at the Tracking unit report...
This is what I can see from the Pics you posted, and PLEASE NOTE - this is my opinion, not a statement under oath, as I was not on the scene to investigate it.
Thanks
Francois Spietkop :rollsmile:
Not even taking what the Tracker unit said, it is clear that the tyre was off the rim, or maybe not off, but moved away from the side of the rim in such a way, that the rim actually contacted the road surface and scratched it.
The scratches in the road surface is way to deep and consistently spaced to have been gravel, and was most likely caused by the rim contacting the road, and breaking apart as seen in the photo showing the rim damage.
This tells me, like I said, the tyre was exposing the rim, either by un-seeding or by pulling far away from the side. This could have been caused by a flat tyre.
Remember... A tyre monitor system on the BMW might not pick up a slow deflation. So if the tyre went flat, where its supposed to be inflated say 2.5bar, but deflated over a few days slowly to say 1.5bar, the system wouldn't notice it, thus the warning stays off.
With a tyre being flat, it can move around on the rim, and even break seal where its mounted, and thus the rim is more easily exposed, especially in a corner, where the weight of the car as well as the turning action influences the tyre dynamics.
Now... the front wheel hitting the curb first, can for sure happen, either because you steered wide, or most likely in this case, as the front tyre didn't have proper grip due to it being flat, or even already deformed off the rim, thus causing the nose of the car to slide.
Traction control also takes a millisecond to work, and might not have been able to react fast enough to keep the car under control.
I cannot say, as some here did, that you skipped the STOP. It might have been that you pulled away while turning, and then this happened... as I said, I am not even looking at the Tracking unit report...
This is what I can see from the Pics you posted, and PLEASE NOTE - this is my opinion, not a statement under oath, as I was not on the scene to investigate it.
Thanks
Francois Spietkop :rollsmile:
Sabretooth tiger
///Member
Kaboose said:
Makes sense what Coisman said, never knew they can come off like that.
See in this pic, from where the marks on the road starts, seems like there was something lying in the road, that could also have damaged your tire. (almost rectangular mark on the road surface, right in the bend)
Bud, may I suggest you rather have the car towed to your home, while you sorting things out with the insurance. You don't want to rack up storage fees as well.
WIDEOPN-X5
Well-known member
Kaboose said:Thank you guys so far.
I went around the corner "To fast".
This is according to surveillance footage acquired from a business in the corner of the first image.
According to Cartrack/Discovery DQ Track i was going "EXACTLY" 35-65 km/h while cornering harshly.
Here is the very detailed report pictures...... :thumbdo:
So I am not so sure that the policy written for and a tracking device developed for any car can be used for any car...
What about front or rear wheel drive? What about harder suspension? What about low profile, offroad or run on flat tyres?
My biggest issue is that they fit the same device and use the same policy for a Chevy Spark (My rental car), a Ford Ranger, and my BMW 320D SportsPack.
Anyway, hopefully this sheds some more light on the subject.
Thx Giys and Gals
I have 2 questions;
a) the time displayed next to the date is actual time of day is it not?
b) assuming a) to be correct, this accident occurred shortly before 01h00 in the morning. Can anyone place you in the Dros in that shopping centre before the accident occurred?
EDIT: RyenGast - my apologies I didnt read through all the posts and saw you raised the D n D angle. Your assessment is spot on. Discovery imho are looking to repudiate on the grounds of PROBABLE d n d. They may well already have had their assessor interview bar keeps / looked at internal CCTV for the possible evidence to support their stance.
Let it be said that Underwriters do not take repudiation of a claim lightly. I sat in a long meeting with one of the larger motor underwriters last week where the message to us assessors / reconstruction guys was simple. We will pay ligit claims as quick as possible however as times get tight, insurance fraud increases and WE have been briefed to be extra vigilant. My contention with the Underwriter concerned is that we as investigators can happily treat everyone who submits a claim as being dodgy however that may result in their losing business. I made the point that if I have a claim and someone starts probing me with questions I will politely tell them to fuck off and cancel my policy immediately......but that's maybe just me
You can bet that Discovery Insure's appointed assessor if he / she is any good will be looking at these things.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANY WRONGDOING.:=)::=):
I am making observations only and I would suggest that you as the OP don't (on a public forum) respond to what I have said.
Once again, sorry you are in this position and I hope it works out for you. If Discovery continue to repudiate your claim, and you are confident of you version of events as being an accident due to circumstances beyond your control, I strongly recommend that you retain your own accident reconstruction specialist to support your claim and take this to the Ombudsman rather sooner than later.
You're paying for a car you cannot presently drive and you are still obliged to keep it comprehensively insured if it is financed.
Best of luck.
WIDEOPN-X3 said:Kaboose said:Thank you guys so far.
I went around the corner "To fast".
This is according to surveillance footage acquired from a business in the corner of the first image.
According to Cartrack/Discovery DQ Track i was going "EXACTLY" 35-65 km/h while cornering harshly.
Here is the very detailed report pictures...... :thumbdo:
So I am not so sure that the policy written for and a tracking device developed for any car can be used for any car...
What about front or rear wheel drive? What about harder suspension? What about low profile, offroad or run on flat tyres?
My biggest issue is that they fit the same device and use the same policy for a Chevy Spark (My rental car
Anyway, hopefully this sheds some more light on the subject.
Thx Giys and Gals
I have 2 questions;
a) the time displayed next to the date is actual time of day is it not?
b) assuming a) to be correct, this accident occurred shortly before 01h00 in the morning. Can anyone place you in the Dros in that shopping centre before the accident occurred?
EDIT: RyenGast - my apologies I didnt read through all the posts and saw you raised the D n D angle. Your assessment is spot on. Discovery imho are looking to repudiate on the grounds of PROBABLE d n d. They may well already have had their assessor interview bar keeps / looked at internal CCTV for the possible evidence to support their stance.
Let it be said that Underwriters do not take repudiation of a claim lightly. I sat in a long meeting with one of the larger motor underwriters last week where the message to us assessors / reconstruction guys was simple. We will pay ligit claims as quick as possible however as times get tight, insurance fraud increases and WE have been briefed to be extra vigilant. My contention with the Underwriter concerned is that we as investigators can happily treat everyone who submits a claim as being dodgy however that may result in their losing business. I made the point that if I have a claim and someone starts probing me with questions I will politely tell them to f*** off and cancel my policy immediately......but that's maybe just me
You can bet that Discovery Insure's appointed assessor if he / she is any good will be looking at these things.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANY WRONGDOING.:=)::=):
I am making observations only and I would suggest that you as the OP don't (on a public forum) respond to what I have said.
Once again, sorry you are in this position and I hope it works out for you. If Discovery continue to repudiate your claim, and you are confident of you version of events as being an accident due to circumstances beyond your control, I strongly recommend that you retain your own accident reconstruction specialist to support your claim and take this to the Ombudsman rather sooner than later.
You're paying for a car you cannot presently drive and you are still obliged to keep it comprehensively insured if it is financed.
Best of luck.
Thank you for your in depth reply.
The claim was denied and yes they did also mention the DnD, but it was as the second condition for the denial. I was the designated driver on the night/evening in question and wanted the video surveillance from the institution we were at to show it. they don't have the footage any more and neither did they give it to the claims specialist. The claims specialist only asked and received the detailed bill. So my question is how do I prove my innocence?
TurboLlew
Honorary ///Member
I would never touch Discovery Health or Insurance after bad experience with the former. One of my staff has the tracker on her 120i and it constantly says she is a poor driver so doesn't get the benefit. People are amazed by the free gym memberships and watches etc... Good luck to them. You don't get anything like that in this life without strings attached.
I have a netstar unit in my car but have never had telemetry requested by insurance for a claim... even with my Subaru.
You can bet your bottom dollar that what another poster said above has happened already. They are just waiting for you to present some kind of case to them and they will bring out the trump card footage/circumstantial evidence of what you were doing there at 1AM. In this day and age there is just so much technology surrounding us - even your phone is tracking where you are constantly.
I would find another insurer.
What's next? You are in a crash and they deny your claim because a 'fit' person would not have suffered as severe whiplash/injuries??
I have a netstar unit in my car but have never had telemetry requested by insurance for a claim... even with my Subaru.
You can bet your bottom dollar that what another poster said above has happened already. They are just waiting for you to present some kind of case to them and they will bring out the trump card footage/circumstantial evidence of what you were doing there at 1AM. In this day and age there is just so much technology surrounding us - even your phone is tracking where you are constantly.
I would find another insurer.
What's next? You are in a crash and they deny your claim because a 'fit' person would not have suffered as severe whiplash/injuries??
WIDEOPN-X5
Well-known member
What was the first condition for denial (or repudiation) of the claim?
You have alluded to this as the reason;
5.25 Prevention of loss
"You must take all reasonable precautions for the maintenance and safety of the insured property. This means that you must take reasonable steps to prevent and/or minimize loss, damage, death, injury, liability and accidents. You may carry out emergency repairs to prevent further damage with our consent."
The underlined part especially but the whole clause as quoted by you is rather vague. Clauses like this can sometimes be voided for vagueness and hence perhaps Discovery's back up stance of the D n D angle. Who determines what the "reasonable steps to prevent loss / damage" are? Discovery.
I would recommend for the amounts involved that you lawyer up and get an accident specialist in on your behalf. But if you are not CERTAIN that your evidence and statements of events will withstand cross examination, don't waste your money.
Also, if you are not CERTAIN of what evidence they may have against you, save your money especially if there's the slightest chance of them proving a probable D n D against you.
Would you be prepared to submit to a polygraph regarding the circumstances of the loss? If so, tell Discovery that. You need to demonstrate at all times that you are co-operating and willing to assist. In so doing, it weakens their position particularly if they're clutching at straws.
BUT, here's the other side of that coin. Stemming from that meeting last week, be aware that most Underwriters will not hesitate to appoint an investigator (and I am not talking about assessor - I mean forensic specialists) if they form the opinion on evidence collected by assessors that the claim is not genuine. I know of one individual currently sitting inside for fraud in regard to an MVA. The old "flip the car with a tow truck" trick and the "claim the pedestrian ran across in front of me and I swerved" defence.
I am not trying to dissuade you from claiming but I am saying have all your ducks in a row and make SURE your claim is genuine in every aspect.
I will leave you with one observation (again granted it is from one photo) and then withdraw from this discussion because I have formed an opinion but will keep it to myself.
The damage to that rim is not a slow speed impact....
You have alluded to this as the reason;
5.25 Prevention of loss
"You must take all reasonable precautions for the maintenance and safety of the insured property. This means that you must take reasonable steps to prevent and/or minimize loss, damage, death, injury, liability and accidents. You may carry out emergency repairs to prevent further damage with our consent."
The underlined part especially but the whole clause as quoted by you is rather vague. Clauses like this can sometimes be voided for vagueness and hence perhaps Discovery's back up stance of the D n D angle. Who determines what the "reasonable steps to prevent loss / damage" are? Discovery.
I would recommend for the amounts involved that you lawyer up and get an accident specialist in on your behalf. But if you are not CERTAIN that your evidence and statements of events will withstand cross examination, don't waste your money.
Also, if you are not CERTAIN of what evidence they may have against you, save your money especially if there's the slightest chance of them proving a probable D n D against you.
Would you be prepared to submit to a polygraph regarding the circumstances of the loss? If so, tell Discovery that. You need to demonstrate at all times that you are co-operating and willing to assist. In so doing, it weakens their position particularly if they're clutching at straws.
BUT, here's the other side of that coin. Stemming from that meeting last week, be aware that most Underwriters will not hesitate to appoint an investigator (and I am not talking about assessor - I mean forensic specialists) if they form the opinion on evidence collected by assessors that the claim is not genuine. I know of one individual currently sitting inside for fraud in regard to an MVA. The old "flip the car with a tow truck" trick and the "claim the pedestrian ran across in front of me and I swerved" defence.
I am not trying to dissuade you from claiming but I am saying have all your ducks in a row and make SURE your claim is genuine in every aspect.
I will leave you with one observation (again granted it is from one photo) and then withdraw from this discussion because I have formed an opinion but will keep it to myself.
The damage to that rim is not a slow speed impact....
Similar threads
