Flip through CoverNote Magazine online
Question...
Our client has had one rim damaged after a stone was lodged between the brake calipers and the rim. The client has not been able to buy the same rim as they have been discontinued so has had to purchase a brand new full set. QBE have advised that they will only pay for one damaged rim, regardless of whether or not they can match the set and have noted consequential loss as the reason for not paying for the set. Is this the case or should they be paying for the full replacement set and claiming the three undamaged ones for salvage costs. Any way around this for our client?.
Reply: Crossley Gates
This is a difficult situation, but in the absence of a pairs or sets type of clause like that found in contents policies for jewellery, I think the underwriter's decision is probably correct. The policy insures physical damage to the vehicle. One rim has suffered physical damage and this satisfies the insuring clause, but the others haven't, so they don't satisfy the insuring clause. To the extent there is an economic loss in relation to the three undamaged rims arising from the one damaged rim, the consequential loss exclusion will apply.
One way of looking at it is to say, the underwriter insures the risk of damage, but not the risk that where the damaged item is part of a set, the cost of having to replace the rest of the undamaged set as a consequence. In contrast, the contents policy does insure this risk by way of the express pairs and sets clause.
Flip through CoverNote Magazine online