A British teenager who suffered sever head injuries in a car crash while on holiday in France has been told that his insurance claim has been rejected by travel insurance company Europ Assistance.
Eighteen year old Dicken Richards had been in a coma for four days after the accident which took the life of one of his passengers and left two more seriously injured. A further two escaped with superficial injuries.
French police reported that the car, a Peugeot 206, veered off the road and flipped over because it was overloaded and the driver was not wearing a safety belt.
Europ Assistance have said that Richards was clearly not covered under the terms of his insurance policy, which states:
‘Exclusions apply to any claims that relate to a customer being involved in any malicious, reckless, illegal or criminal act. Specifically, Mr Richards was not wearing a seatbelt, as required by law.’
What an awful mess, but six people travelling in France in a Peugeot 206, what were they thinking?
1 comment so far
1 Jon Maine // Aug 24, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Under the road traffic act in this circumstance the driver is responsible for the car being overloaded. Also not wearing a seat belt for a passenger in a road traffic accident may reduce compensation available by a small percentage up to a rarely used maximum of 50%.
So why is there such a difference in the terms of car and travel insurance?