Car insurance (UK) excludes commute to and from work, will not pay on claim during non-commute
"Having worked in insurance, I can give you a few pointers. Firstly, state that you ""may have to complain"". Insurers hate complaints because they really complicate matters, are loads of work and must be tracked. I would advise not actually escalating it to a complaint until later as this may cause a delay as the actual process is quite convoluted. Mentioning the possibility of complaint sometimes makes people a bit more active. Try and resolve the issue, and if you aren't getting anywhere then make a complaint. Maintain a friendly, assertive, polite demeanor. If you get angry and aggressive you'll not likely get far. Remember that the people on the end of the phone are both human and more knowledgeable about insurance than you. You want them on your side, not against you. Make copious notes. If you can, record calls. If you are recording calls you will likely legally need to give them the option of not being recorded, so make sure you mention that you're recording each individual call as soon as you start speaking to the handler.  Refer to your notes and make sure you carry out actions you say you will. If you spend a few days sending something you said you'd email over that day, and you then chase them a few days after that they may not have had the document through their workflow yet. It also engenders urgency if you're acting promptly, and suggests that you don't really care if you're taking your time.  Get Names. This is an important step, as this gives the handler someone to talk to who may be familiar with your case. You may end up speaking to the same people more than once, so try and build a rapport if you do. ""I like this guy"" may lead to a bit more effort being put in, and a potentially better outcome. In my experience, GoSkippy can be a bit slow to respond to things, so you'll likely have to chase them up. If you chase them up and say ""I called on X date, discussing Y with Z and Z said they would do A, B and C. Has this been done yet?"" it looks better than saying ""I called about a week ago and spoke to one of your colleagues who said he'd do something for me. He's not done it, what's going on?"", As to a plan of action, I would split this into two points: Mis-sold policy and definition of commuting. Mis-sold policy - If they truly gave your wife two options, then they messed up. The standard 3 offered by goskippy are Social Domestic and Pleasure (SDP), SDP+Commuting, and SDP+C and Business use. Other companies sometimes roll commuting into SDP as standard. On the comparison sites however, there are usually the three separate options, and if you used one to set the policy up and clicked ""SDP Only"" then you may be in trouble.  Social domestic and pleasure only DOES NOT include commuting. Whilst it is your responsibility to thoroughly check any documentation that comes through, it could be argued that if given two options between Business Use and SDP, then a reasonable person could be considered to assume that Goskippies definition of SDP did include commuting. Therefore, they need to prove to you that there were three options offered and that your wife specifically excluded commuting. IF they can't, then you should be able to argue that only two were offered and that commuting could have reasonably been assumed to be included. Use that term ""reasonable person"" btw, it's used in a lot of internal literature - at least at the insurer, I worked at. not commuting - Firstly, clarify their definition of ""commuting"". If your wife was on her way to work afterwards, then they may well consider she was commuting. For instance, at present, I drive from my house to my son's childminders, then to my wife's work and finally to mine. My commute could be argued to be 1 minute (my workplace is probably a minutes drive from my wife's, but I can't park in her car-park), but if I were to have an accident between my house and my son's childminder (~15 mins drive) the insurers would probably consider that commuting.  If she was not on her way to work afterwards, and assuming your wife arranged her visit via text (or whatsapp, fb messenger or similar) you should easily be able to show that your wife had driven from a friends house to the childminder. If she was on a holiday day or was not working on that day, then that's also something you should be able to prove either with proof of her working pattern or proof of her holiday. If she doesn't have a job at all, then again, that's something that's provable. Proof reigns king in claims, so if you can prove certain key facts then you should be on to a winner." You should start by making a written complaint to the insurance company itself. You have two angles of attack: What was discussed when she was sold the policy. Make sure you set out exactly what you believe you were told and highlight that they didn't ask about commuting (assuming that's the case). Ask them to preserve any recordings they have of the call and to send you a copy. The nature of the journey where the accident happened. From the description - unless it was part of a journey to and from work - there's no good reason for them to classify it as commuting. Make sure you make good written notes now of anything that happened verbally - phone calls etc, and keep doing this as the process goes along. If that written complaint doesn't work, your next step is to go to the Financial Ombudsman, who are a neutral adjudication service. If the Ombudsman doesn't support your case, you could go to court directly, but it'll be expensive and a lot of effort, and by this stage it'd be unlikely you would win. The Ombudsman's rejection wouldn't count against you directly, but it'd be a strong indication that your case is weak. See https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/making-a-complaint-about-an-insurance-company for a more detailed walk-through.
A fourteen-year-old can invest a few thousand into commuting to a part-time job or an education. If you can wait five years for a couple hundred you can wait two to four years for a car (or gas money) or a class (or some textbooks.) Public transportation is generally a lot slower and not a whole lot cheaper. By car, my commute to the Bronx would take me 20 minutes, but if I took train/bus/subway it would take 90 minutes. Now I'm working in Manhattan again and public transportation costs me over $300/month just to get to the city and back, and still takes over an hour.  And on top of all that, the IRS is cutting the 2012 limit of pre-tax income that can be allocated to public transportation commuting expenses from $225 to $125 per month. Interestingly, the limit of pre-tax income that can be used to pay for commuter parking is not being reduced. I guess the government wants us to stop using public transit? From where I'm sitting right now, there are 8 Enterprise Rent-A-Cars within 10 miles of my location.  On their website, they claim that their 5500 locations are within 15 miles of most consumers.   They currently offer a ride share program for the commute to work that is interesting.  I'm not 100% sure on the details, though. I disagree with the comment that radio is dying, you may not use it often but many people still commute to work and use the radio. Satellite radio attempted to take over the radio business but it really hasn't done so successfully. There's a surge of people playing music from their iPods into the car stereo but I don't think it's been large enough or reached enough people to say that the radio is dead. You can't ask insurers to use a particular score -- they have a state-approved underwriting model that they must follow consistently. Insurance companies make money by not paying claims, and poor credit score (including limit access to credit) increases the probability that you will file a small claim. Why? If you get into a minor accident (say $750 of damage) and have a $500 deductible, you are much less likely to file a claim to get $250 if you have access to a cash or credit lines to make the repairs yourself.  If you feel that you are going to be penalized for closing credit card accounts, the solution is simple -- don't close them. Other than an event where you need to sever a relationship with a co-owner of an account (ie, you break up with your significant other, dissolve a business, etc) or avoid paying an annual fee, there is no advantage to you closing a revolving credit account, ever. If you cannot control your spending, throw the card in the shredder. Eventually, the credit card company will close your account for inactivity, which affects your credit to a lesser degree. (The big exception is if you carry sufficient balances on other cards, your credit utilization ratio goes up materially.) That depends on your health insurance. PIP will often cover your missed work as a result of an injury - which isn't a problem if you health insurance also does this but there is a chance it does not. What would you and your wife do for money if you became paralyzed? "Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase ""pass-through"" insurance from.  What you're describing is a self-funded plan.  In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc.  In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant.  Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime.  The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people.  These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues.  A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year.  Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated.  Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums.   Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement.  The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums.  Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement.  Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance.  In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained.  The employer sets up a claims checking account.  The TPA has draft authority on the account.  The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member.  Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity.  This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold  (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend.   I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture.  Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year?  And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person.  I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month.  So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit.    Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot.  A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women?  Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years?  Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years?  A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year.  Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired?  A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims.  They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything.  I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on." No.  Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment.   However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities.  Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses.  Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station.  These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA.  Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though.  Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits.