Reply to: contractor car insurance claim

[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.......

[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.

[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]

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.....

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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..

[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

[WTFH]

Travelling to an interview is social. You are not being paid for attending, and it is not a journey with any regularity (unless of course you are successful, at which point it'll fall under commuting, if you are travelling to the same place of work).

Not to us it isn't. We are negotiating a B2B contract between your LTD and the client/agent. It's sales work. Part of our job securing clients and selling our services.

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.

[northernladuk]

A teacher transporting children within the context of work would be an absolute no-no - the potential for enormous PI claims would make this extremely high risk, and most typical insurers wouldn't touch this (I would suggest this would fall under Class 3 Business Use, which for a teacher would be extremely hard to obtain cover for).
.

Wrong.

NUT guidance mentions business use and not category to be fair but if this was as dire as you make it out to be the guidance would be much clearer... and it isn't. In your example no teacher would be able to get insurance and that's just utter pap.

NUT Guidance
https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/Ve...367_1_3_A4.pdf

The mistake you are making (surprise!!) is teachers don't have to carry them as part of their trade so Level 1 is fine.

A point borne out by the fact we supplied the list in the guidance plus some details scenarios that worried my other half and have had it in writing from both Direct Line and Toyota Insurance these are covered.

[vwdan]

Not to us it isn't. We are negotiating a B2B contract between your LTD and the client/agent. It's sales work. Part of our job securing clients and selling our services.

Only a tulip contractor would think what you've suggested.

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.

[northernladuk]

Travelling to an interview is social. You are not being paid for attending, and it is not a journey with any regularity (unless of course you are successful, at which point it'll fall under commuting, if you are travelling to the same place of work)..

Not to us it isn't. We are negotiating a B2B contract between your LTD and the client/agent. It's sales work. Part of our job securing clients and selling our services.

Only a tulip contractor would think what you've suggested.

[WTFH]

If you complete an insurer proposal form, some insurers will not let you declare that you are unemployed but require commuting/business use, because how can you possibly require these uses if you are unemployed?

That's the difference between being a permanent employee and a contractor.
Contractors are still "employed" by their limited company even if they are not contracted out to clients.
Contractors can still claim a salary from their limited company even if they are not contracted out to clients.
Contractors aren't unemployed when they are between contracts.

And this is where your problem lies. You don't seem to know the difference between a permanent employee of a company and a contractor working for clients.

A substitute teacher who can work for multiple schools is exactly the same as a contractor who can work for multiple clients.

[fiisch]

Did your experience include the different types of insurance?

Here's a couple of random companies and what they say about social, commuting and business use:
What can I use my car for?
| Ask a question | 1st CENTRAL Car insurance
Choosing the right class of use

Funny you pick those two insurers...... I worked with all types of motor insurance, including commercial and taxi, where usage is far more complicated.

Travelling to an interview is social. You are not being paid for attending, and it is not a journey with any regularity (unless of course you are successful, at which point it'll fall under commuting, if you are travelling to the same place of work).

If you complete an insurer proposal form, some insurers will not let you declare that you are unemployed but require commuting/business use, because how can you possibly require these uses if you are unemployed?

I take the point that with contracting the lines are blurred - if you are on the bench, are you still "employed" or unemployed? I'd suggest the former.

The point I was making is no insurer in the land would refuse a contractor claim in this particular scenario. I can see some ambiguity, but unless as a contractor you are travelling to multiple sites as part of the same gig, I do not agree that you would need business use for this. The test would be how long a gig was for, and the regularity of travel.

The spirit of getting individuals to declare commuting vs business use is to identify whether they will be making the same journey at the same times (lower risk), or if they will be travelling on business and therefore more irregularity in their travel patterns.