I work in London and live in Hertfordshire, so I rely on driving to my local train station and then taking public transport into the capital.
Last October I was driving home from the train station when I met a man who had stepped out into the street.
Police said the man was “obviously drunk”, it wasn’t my fault and he escaped without serious injuries.
That’s why I was surprised when my agent, Hastings, contacted me in February to say the man had made a claim.
Hastings informed me that I was not covered by my Advantage policy as my policy only covers Social, Domestic and Personal Use (SDP).
Hastings claims that I was commuting home and therefore should have taken out “social, household, entertainment and commuter insurance” (SDP+C).
When it comes to “commuting,” I would certainly be driving to work and back home, rather than doing a few miles of an 80 mile drive to work and back.
I’m worried about facing a large legal bill and not having insurance coverage.
Related Articles
How this money can help
Sam Barker from This is Money responds: This whole situation comes down to answering one question: What is commuting?
For insurers, SDP car insurance would cover the use of the car for everyday road trips, such as visiting people, going shopping, picking up children from school, etc.
The improved, usually more expensive SDP+C policy also covers commuting.
The reason insurance companies care is because they may be at higher risk while commuting, such as leaving their car unattended in public for long periods of time or putting more miles behind the wheel.
The problem here is the definition of “commuting,” which varies greatly from insurance company to insurance company.
Some, like Comparethemarket, LV, Confused.com and Admiral, specifically say that driving to the train station and leaving the car there counts as commuting.
Others, including your own broker Hastings, are less clear.
Your policy states: “What is not covered: Travel to and from a fixed place of business or study.”
To me and you and no doubt many others, it sounds like you won’t be covered if you use your car for the entire commute – not part of it.
But Hastings blamed you, saying you had “violated the terms of your insurance agreement.”
A Hastings representative told you: “Your cover is for personal use only. However, we understand that at the time of the accident you were using the vehicle to travel to Bishops Stortford station and from there to work in London.”
“Therefore, the ‘essential nature’ of the trip was commuting to/from your place of work.”
Obviously this is wrong in one thing: you went home from the train station at the end of the day and didn’t go there at the beginning.
Regardless, Hastings stood firm and informed you that if it was successful, it would not cover the claim, which would have left you with a very large bill.
This is Money reached out to Hastings and asked the firm to reconsider and agree to compensate you for any legal costs arising from the lawsuit, arguing that it was both unclear and unfair.
Hastings then agreed to fight the lawsuit and cover the costs anyway, saying it would clarify its wording as to what “commuting” meant.
The agent said he tried to contact you, which you deny.
A Hastings spokesman said: “We have investigated the claim further and have attempted to contact your reader several times to discuss this. Unfortunately we couldn’t reach them, so a standard letter was sent.”
“We would always prefer to discuss complex claims with our policyholders to confirm and clarify all aspects of the claim.”
“We have now been able to speak to Jane and have discussed this in detail with her. From this conversation we can now confirm that we intend to cover the costs of the claim.”
“In general, we would take this approach with all customers in this situation, regardless of the wording of the technical guidelines (clarification of the wording on commuting is already planned for an update), although, as you can imagine, we would consider each case individually. “ its own value depending on the circumstances.
“It is our full intention to contest and defend the case brought by the third party and we do not expect Jane to cover these costs.”
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click, we may receive a small commission. This helps us finance This Is Money and keep it free to use. We don’t write articles to promote products. We will not allow a commercial relationship to compromise our editorial independence.