I work in London and live in Hertfordshire, so rely on driving to my local train station then getting public transport into the capital.
Last October, I was driving home from the station when I hit a man who had stepped into the road.
The police said the man was ‘clearly inebriated’, and that it was not my fault, and that he escaped without serious injury.
So I was surprised to get contacted by my broker, Hastings, in February, saying the man had made a claim.
Devil in the detail: The definition of just one word, ‘commuting’, lies at the heart of the problem
Hastings told me I was not covered on my Advantage insurance policy, as my contract only covers ‘social, domestic and pleasure’ (SDP) use.
Hastings contends that I was commuting home, and therefore I should have bought a ‘social, domestic, pleasure and commuting’ (SDP+C) policy.
Surely ‘commuting’ would involve driving my car to and from work, not for a couple of miles of an 80-mile round trip to work and back.
I am worried that I am facing a large legal bill and without insurance cover.
Sam Barker of This is Money replies: This entire situation revolves around answering one question: what is commuting?
To insurers, an SDP car insurance policy would cover use of the car for everyday driving trips, like visiting people, going to the shops, picking children up from school and so on.
The upgraded, typically more expensive SDP+C policy also covers commuting.
The reason insurance firms care about this is that there can be a higher risk to them with commuting, such as leaving a car parked and unattended in public for a long period of time, or covering more miles behind the wheel.
The problem here is how ‘commuting’ is defined, which varies hugely between insurance firms.
Some, such as Comparethemarket, LV, Confused.com and Admiral, explicitly say that driving to the train station and leaving your car there counts as commuting.
Others, including your own broker, Hastings, are less clear.
Your policy wording says: ‘What’s not covered: Travelling to and from one permanent place of business or study.’
To me, and you, and no doubt many others, that sounds like you are not covered for using your car for an entire commute – not for part of it.
But Hastings accused you, and said you had ‘broken the terms of your policy agreement’.
A Hastings employee told you: ‘Your policy cover is for social use only, however we understand that at the time of the collision it was being used for commuting to Bishops Stortford train station for onward travel to London for work.
‘Therefore the ‘essential character’ of the journey was to commute to/from your place of work.’
Obviously this is incorrect on one thing – you were driving home from the train station at the end of the day, not heading towards it at the beginning.
Regardless, Hastings stood firm and told you it would not cover the claim, if it was successful, which could have left you to foot a very large bill.
This is Money approached Hastings asking the firm to reconsider and agree to cover you for any legal bill resulting from the claim, arguing that it was being both unclear and unfair.
Hastings then agreed to fight the claim and cover the cost regardless, and said that it was going to clarify its wording around what ‘commuting’ meant.
The broker said it had tried to contact you, which you deny.
A Hastings spokesman said: ‘We have continued to investigate the claim and tried to contact your reader to discuss this on a number of occasions, unfortunately as we were unable to reach her, 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’ve now been able to speak with Jane and have discussed this fully with her, from this conversation we can now confirm that we intend to cover the cost of the claim.
‘Generally, this approach is one we would take with all customers in this position, irrespective of the technical policy wording (clarity on the wording about commuting is already scheduled for an update), although as you can imagine, we would review each case on its own merit depending on its circumstances.
‘It is our full intention to challenge and defend the case being brought by the 3rd party, and we do not expect Jane to cover any of those costs.’
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.