Just a brief note on the reason for a claim, A artic has a blow out on there o/s drive axle which caused the top wing section to come off & hit my van causing damage, apparently
its just one of them things, just goes to prove you are never too old to learn.
Sounds like the CEO of the insurance company needs a smack. 
dave docwra:
Just a brief note on the reason for a claim, A artic has a blow out on there o/s drive axle which caused the top wing section to come off & hit my van causing damage, apparently
its just one of them things, just goes to prove you are never too old to learn.0
I would challenge that in court. Basically, in their eyes, anything which is accidental is not covered. If anything the publicity would shame them into paying out as no-one in their right mind would insure with them if that’s their idea of cover.
Very weasely, but just what I expect from the insurance sector.
I wouldn’t accept that negligence is the only issue, surely it is fault, and that seems like it is not up for debate here.
Just because a tyre is in good condition at PMI does not necessarily mean it will be fine a month later. You could challenge them to produce evidence of a robust tyre management policy, if they can’t evidence one with documented records, you could still be in with a chance, because ideally, in addition to the six weekly checks (the average PMI interval, other intervals may by valid depending on the operator’s type of work) operators should have additional, independent checks on tyre condition, preferably monthly. The TC would agree with that, as would the DVSA, so there’s a fair chance an intelligent Magistrate might be persuaded too.
Rule One in the insurance world is quibble and delay whenever possible. And do so even when they are on a loser in the hope that the claimant will give up. Some do. Years ago I had a vehicle written off when a driver in a D Series Artic fell asleep at the wheel whilst doing an estimated 30 mph and shunted my vehicle up the rear and into another HGV. The whole incident was seen by the crew of a police traffic car parked not 15 yards away. They accurately reported what they saw. Payout? Only months later and after me getting one of London’s best legal chambers involved. Remarkably immediately upon their intervention a cheque fluttered on to my door mat.
My father only insured to the minimum legal as he simply did not trust insurers. He was right it seems as they still try to wriggle out of everything.
Zac_A:
Very weasely, but just what I expect from the insurance sector.
I wouldn’t accept that negligence is the only issue, surely it is fault, and that seems like it is not up for debate here.Just because a tyre is in good condition at PMI does not necessarily mean it will be fine a month later. You could challenge them to produce evidence of a robust tyre management policy, if they can’t evidence one with documented records, you could still be in with a chance, because ideally, in addition to the six weekly checks (the average PMI interval, other intervals may by valid depending on the operator’s type of work) operators should have additional, independent checks on tyre condition, preferably monthly. The TC would agree with that, as would the DVSA, so there’s a fair chance an intelligent Magistrate might be persuaded too.
Is it not a part of a drivers duty to carry out daily tyre inspections?
Dennis Javelin:
Zac_A:
Very weasely, but just what I expect from the insurance sector.
I wouldn’t accept that negligence is the only issue, surely it is fault, and that seems like it is not up for debate here.Just because a tyre is in good condition at PMI does not necessarily mean it will be fine a month later. You could challenge them to produce evidence of a robust tyre management policy, if they can’t evidence one with documented records, you could still be in with a chance, because ideally, in addition to the six weekly checks (the average PMI interval, other intervals may by valid depending on the operator’s type of work) operators should have additional, independent checks on tyre condition, preferably monthly. The TC would agree with that, as would the DVSA, so there’s a fair chance an intelligent Magistrate might be persuaded too.
Is it not a part of a drivers duty to carry out daily tyre inspections?
Plus tyres get damaged by objects in the road. A perfect tyre can be damaged in seconds.
Dipster:
Dennis Javelin:
Zac_A:
Very weasely, but just what I expect from the insurance sector.
I wouldn’t accept that negligence is the only issue, surely it is fault, and that seems like it is not up for debate here.Just because a tyre is in good condition at PMI does not necessarily mean it will be fine a month later. You could challenge them to produce evidence of a robust tyre management policy, if they can’t evidence one with documented records, you could still be in with a chance, because ideally, in addition to the six weekly checks (the average PMI interval, other intervals may by valid depending on the operator’s type of work) operators should have additional, independent checks on tyre condition, preferably monthly. The TC would agree with that, as would the DVSA, so there’s a fair chance an intelligent Magistrate might be persuaded too.
Is it not a part of a drivers duty to carry out daily tyre inspections?
Plus tyres get damaged by objects in the road. A perfect tyre can be damaged in seconds.
That’s my point. It seems the insurance company are claiming that because the vehicle was inspected a few weeks previously they don’t feel responsible. However if they can’t prove that the driver carried out a daily check then any claim would be valid. If a driver falls asleep at the wheel and causes a crash you can’t hide behind the fact the he/she was awake when they started out. If this went to court the judge would thrown their defence out for incompetence.
Dennis Javelin:
Zac_A:
Very weasely, but just what I expect from the insurance sector.
I wouldn’t accept that negligence is the only issue, surely it is fault, and that seems like it is not up for debate here.Just because a tyre is in good condition at PMI does not necessarily mean it will be fine a month later. You could challenge them to produce evidence of a robust tyre management policy, if they can’t evidence one with documented records, you could still be in with a chance, because ideally, in addition to the six weekly checks (the average PMI interval, other intervals may by valid depending on the operator’s type of work) operators should have additional, independent checks on tyre condition, preferably monthly. The TC would agree with that, as would the DVSA, so there’s a fair chance an intelligent Magistrate might be persuaded too.
Is it not a part of a drivers duty to carry out daily tyre inspections?
Of course it is, but the PMIs & independent tyre checks are still required too. Sometimes a tyre just blows for reasons that potentially might not have been observable at the start of the shift. My drivers are in and out of metal recycling sites regularly, easiest thing in the world to start the day with a servicable tyre, pick up some damage en route and end up with a blowout. Some things fall under force majeure and can’t reasonably be foreseen.
Of course we could make drivers personally responsible for all blowouts and see what that does to the industry 
Zac_A:
Dennis Javelin:
Zac_A:
Very weasely, but just what I expect from the insurance sector.
I wouldn’t accept that negligence is the only issue, surely it is fault, and that seems like it is not up for debate here.Just because a tyre is in good condition at PMI does not necessarily mean it will be fine a month later. You could challenge them to produce evidence of a robust tyre management policy, if they can’t evidence one with documented records, you could still be in with a chance, because ideally, in addition to the six weekly checks (the average PMI interval, other intervals may by valid depending on the operator’s type of work) operators should have additional, independent checks on tyre condition, preferably monthly. The TC would agree with that, as would the DVSA, so there’s a fair chance an intelligent Magistrate might be persuaded too.
Is it not a part of a drivers duty to carry out daily tyre inspections?
Of course it is, but the PMIs & independent tyre checks are still required too. Sometimes a tyre just blows for reasons that potentially might not have been observable at the start of the shift. My drivers are in and out of metal recycling sites regularly, easiest thing in the world to start the day with a servicable tyre, pick up some damage en route and end up with a blowout. Some things fall under force majeure and can’t reasonably be foreseen.
Of course we could make drivers personally responsible for all blowouts and see what that does to the industry
Again, that’s my point. Just because nothing was picked up at a service some weeks previous doesn’t mean that a defect hasn’t happened in the intervening period. As you say, even with daily checks, defects can/will happen when you are moving. Just because you have taken all reasonable and legally required precautions you cannot stop things breaking. Force majeure could perhaps be applied if a tyre blowout had never happened before so was therefore an unknown quantity but, as we know and witness with the number of tyre casings that litter the motorways, these are not irregular occurrences so this is not a reasonable defence.
The insurance company are being arses - quelle surprise - but threatening them with court action would make them see sense I’m sure.
Dipster:
Rule One in the insurance world is quibble and delay whenever possible. And do so even when they are on a loser in the hope that the claimant will give up. Some do. Years ago I had a vehicle written off when a driver in a D Series Artic fell asleep at the wheel whilst doing an estimated 30 mph and shunted my vehicle up the rear and into another HGV. The whole incident was seen by the crew of a police traffic car parked not 15 yards away. They accurately reported what they saw. Payout? Only months later and after me getting one of London’s best legal chambers involved. Remarkably immediately upon their intervention a cheque fluttered on to my door mat.My father only insured to the minimum legal as he simply did not trust insurers. He was right it seems as they still try to wriggle out of everything.
Totally agree. Challenge it. I accept there are way less blow outs these days with more robust compounds in even the budget tyres, I also accept the points around road debris and the like. However it cannot surely be acceptable that you’ve sustained damage through no fault of your own and causation was by another vehicle, regardless of PMI or daily checks, and you are responsible for repair and the costs involved.
Zac_A:
Of course it is, but the PMIs & independent tyre checks are still required too. Sometimes a tyre just blows for reasons that potentially might not have been observable at the start of the shift. My drivers are in and out of metal recycling sites regularly, easiest thing in the world to start the day with a servicable tyre, pick up some damage en route and end up with a blowout. Some things fall under force majeure and can’t reasonably be foreseen.
I would think that running in & out of scrap,recycling yards would greatly increase the risk of a blow out & surely with this increased risk it would be prudent to spend some time to check for damage within reason before setting off, this time could be better then the cost of a tyre failure out on the road.
dave docwra:
Zac_A:
Of course it is, but the PMIs & independent tyre checks are still required too. Sometimes a tyre just blows for reasons that potentially might not have been observable at the start of the shift. My drivers are in and out of metal recycling sites regularly, easiest thing in the world to start the day with a servicable tyre, pick up some damage en route and end up with a blowout. Some things fall under force majeure and can’t reasonably be foreseen.I would think that running in & out of scrap,recycling yards would greatly increase the risk of a blow out & surely with this increased risk it would be prudent to spend some time to check for damage within reason before setting off, this time could be better then the cost of a tyre failure out on the road.
FYI it wasn’t my driver or vehicle that had the blow out.