Blown lorry tyre hits my car, who's at fault ?
Discussion
I thought I'd resurrect this thread as my pal at work is in a bit of a pickle.
He was hit on the motorway by a runaway wheel from a small trailer.
The owner of the trailer admitted it was his wheel and my pals insurance paid out and repaired his car, but they won't give his excess back.
He's on a protected no claims policy but the insurer is arguing that the accident wasn't the cause of negligence as the owner had a record of an inspection for the trailer that had been carried out shortly before the accident.
However they also admitted that the only section of the inspection report that hadn't been ticked was the "Wheel nuts present and tightened" box.
Despite this the insurers won't budge and are attributing blame to my buddy and refusing to pay back his excess.
Is this normal?
He was hit on the motorway by a runaway wheel from a small trailer.
The owner of the trailer admitted it was his wheel and my pals insurance paid out and repaired his car, but they won't give his excess back.
He's on a protected no claims policy but the insurer is arguing that the accident wasn't the cause of negligence as the owner had a record of an inspection for the trailer that had been carried out shortly before the accident.
However they also admitted that the only section of the inspection report that hadn't been ticked was the "Wheel nuts present and tightened" box.
Despite this the insurers won't budge and are attributing blame to my buddy and refusing to pay back his excess.
Is this normal?
If the insurance co won't run with it, approach the insured parties insurer directly, and failing that, small claims against the insured party (who will then refer it to his insurance company) directly.
If the inspection is missing the wheel nuts bit, then he may then have a claim against the person who carried out the inspection, so he may opt to pay your claim and claim from them in turn, who will involve their insurer who will probably cough up.
I'm making a few assumptions here, but if I was in a similar situation, that would be what I'd do.
If the inspection is missing the wheel nuts bit, then he may then have a claim against the person who carried out the inspection, so he may opt to pay your claim and claim from them in turn, who will involve their insurer who will probably cough up.
I'm making a few assumptions here, but if I was in a similar situation, that would be what I'd do.
Cyberprog said:
If the insurance co won't run with it, approach the insured parties insurer directly, and failing that, small claims against the insured party (who will then refer it to his insurance company) directly.
But the other guy hasn't been negligent has he? He has paid to have his trailer inspected, so his insurer have no need to settle a claim. I would have thought the 3rd party would need to claim from the garage directly.I've often heard a certain robotic member in sp&l quote the phrase "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle an accident occurs.........." relating to various things driving related (usually a vicinity polac with no physical crash), so logically could that not be the case here? as in if the lorry had not been there then no damage would have been possible?
Mave said:
But the other guy hasn't been negligent has he? He has paid to have his trailer inspected, so his insurer have no need to settle a claim. I would have thought the 3rd party would need to claim from the garage directly.
He has been negligent - he didn't check the inspection form and flag with the garage that the wheel nut check hadn't been done. A fairly crucial thing if you've had the wheels off to check brake pads/drums.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff