contractor car insurance claim

[northernladuk]

On the other hand, it sounds like good news for the OP. If insurers can't grasp what we are, then that's their problem.

Well yes, but no. You are relying on the advice from fiisch to come to that conclusion. The same poster that doesn't appear to be able to grasp how basic rules, that are enshrined in legislation and applied for years, works.

The only safe conclusion that I can see that can be pulled from all this is that any contractor without Business Class insurance is a bit of a pillock and needs to understand what they do a bit better

[northernladuk]

And most contractors who run their own limited companies are being paid for attending interviews and claiming the travel on expenses. They are not charging end clients for it, but they are claiming salary and expenses from their own limited company.

Maybe we should have made this point multiple times earlier on in the thread... Oh.. Hang on..

[fiisch]

I concede that there is an argument to suggest contractors would require business use (it's certainly not black and white), but in regards to the original point i.e.: would an insurer refuse a claim on these grounds? No, there is too much ambiguity on this subject, and an underwriter would not have depth of understanding to even argue this point.

Car insurance is riddled with ambiguity - on this same point, should we be declaring our jobs as what we actually do, or company director?

I don't mind being a tulip contractor, just so long as my boss doesn't find out....

[Sub]

It will be fair to suggest that insurer can refuse contractor's claim for an accident happened while on commute to customer's site even on SDPC policy as such activity require Business Use cover.
One of my customer's even demanded insurance including Business Use to be produced in order to allow me to claim mileage spent for travel for their business.

There is certain uncertainty around naming of the policy however. Here is what my says:

"Business for all"
Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and travel between home and permanent place of business or employment. Use for the Policyholder and named drivers in connection with their business or profession, subject to the exclusions below [To summarize, these exclusions are around car hire and racing staff].

Which is looking as Class 2 definition, but "Class 2" not mentioned anywhere in the documents. One another insurer even wasn't able to quote Business Use classes, they only had Commercial option.

[northernladuk]

I concede that there is an argument to suggest contractors would require business use (it's certainly not black and white)

It most certainly is. One or more of the activities we could mention might be a bit on the grey side I..e going out to buy a works laptop, but the very basic things we do couldn't make it any more black and white.

We've sent you links to prove we do pure business travel, links to prove HMRC class it as business travel, links to articles written by legal experts and links to information on other professions that turned out very similar to ours. I really am at a loss to why you still don't think it is black and white.
We've also pointed out to you the errors in all your assumptions and gaps in knowledge that we didn't need post links for.

Even the most belligerent idiot would have folded in the face of all this and the best you can so is admit it all suggests it's not black and white? Honestly. It beggars belief.

I don't mind being a tulip contractor, just so long as my boss doesn't find out....

I assume this is you attempting to be facetious but you can't blame anyone for thinking you really mean this. Just makes you look even drafter.

[fiisch]

Even the most belligerent idiot would have folded in the face of all this and the best you can so is admit it all suggests it's not black and white? Honestly. It beggars belief.

I made the decisions around the decision whether to void/refuse claims in the instance of non-disclosure for two of the insurers used in the examples provided, so make of that what you will.....

[simes]

On the other hand, it sounds like good news for the OP. If insurers can't grasp what we are, then that's their problem.

Unfortunately, I am sure they would make it our problem. If there is a crack to fall through, the insurers would exploit it to their, as opposed to our, advantage.

[fiisch]

I assume this is you attempting to be facetious but you can't blame anyone for thinking you really mean this. Just makes you look even drafter.

The irony.

[northernladuk]

The irony.

I hardly think an autocorrect error provides any sense of irony worth mentioning in this car crash of a thread. But if it makes you happy.......