Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

surveyor

Original Poster:

7,664 posts

70 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Insurance-liable-po...

I'm surprised at this as I understood that Third Party cover in instances like this could not be got out of, albeit an insurance company could or would seek to recover the costs from their insured.

Interest in comments on this from the experts? Does this mean that a third party can hit us, and then the insurance company not be liable if he has not declared his modifications etc. I promise not to argue on this one!



ohtari

654 posts

30 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
I think the issue in this case is not between the suicidal idiot and the poor chap that got squashed, but between the shop insurance company and other.

With regards to mods, I think that in 3rd party cases, the company usually forks the bill, then gets you to cough up the excess and whatever the increase is for the mods. Not sure what would happen if you made a claim (and they found out) though.

V8RX7

9,430 posts

149 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
That makes sense to me.

Insurance can't cover deliberate acts otherwise anyone who couldn't sell their car (or house etc) could crash / torch it and claim.

The driver is liable but presumably has no money.

Did you know that if a car catches fire but it wasn't a known issue and burns down your property the car drivers insurance isn't liable ?

Ask me how I know frown


Deva Link

26,934 posts

131 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
V8RX7 said:
Did you know that if a car catches fire but it wasn't a known issue and burns down your property the car drivers insurance isn't liable ?
Same scenario as a truck tyre bursting on the motorway and damaging your car. They don't normally pay unless you can prove negligence.

Aretnap

871 posts

37 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
V8RX7 said:
Did you know that if a car catches fire but it wasn't a known issue and burns down your property the car drivers insurance isn't liable ?
Makes sense. The insurance company is only liable if the driver is liable. The driver is only liable if it can be proved that he was negligent in some way - the mere fact that his car was involved in the accident isn't enough. Same scenario I believe if he drives into the back of you because he skidded on oil on the road which he didn't see and couldn't reasonably have been expected to see. If you want insurance cover against things which are pure bad luck, you need to take it out yourself.
Advertisement

Fireblade69

558 posts

89 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
Aretnap said:
V8RX7 said:
Did you know that if a car catches fire but it wasn't a known issue and burns down your property the car drivers insurance isn't liable ?
Makes sense. The insurance company is only liable if the driver is liable. The driver is only liable if it can be proved that he was negligent in some way - the mere fact that his car was involved in the accident isn't enough. Same scenario I believe if he drives into the back of you because he skidded on oil on the road which he didn't see and couldn't reasonably have been expected to see. If you want insurance cover against things which are pure bad luck, you need to take it out yourself.
Surely that can't be right? If the driver skidded and hit another car then he wasn't driving with due care and attention I would have thought. Lots of accidents happen, well most probably, because someone didn't notice something that they should have. Likewise the tyre coming off, surely the fact that it has come off is indicative of some neglect somewhere.

I agree with the court on the decision though, the car was merely a tool for a very unusual event so the insurer of the car couldn't really be expected to pay up for that.

Piglet

6,076 posts

141 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
The skidding example isn't ideal as it would lead to a bun fight about the expected standard of driving.

A similar example is a driver who has a heart attack or stroke without warning - they are not negligent and their insurers will try to avoid paying. The key bit being "without warning".

In the Bristol case it was a deliberate act not negligence so the insurance isn't relevant.

Interesting case - I suspect we'll see more of this type of avoidance. I know some insurers were trying to wriggle on snow claims a few years ago on the basis that the drivers were carrying out necessary tasks and were driving at low speed with all due care.

Noger

7,048 posts

135 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
Subrogation is what my £5 is on.

Although interesting that TuggingTheHat has got it fairly wrong again.

Aretnap

871 posts

37 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all

Aretnap

871 posts

37 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
Fireblade69 said:
Surely that can't be right? If the driver skidded and hit another car then he wasn't driving with due care and attention I would have thought. Lots of accidents happen, well most probably, because someone didn't notice something that they should have. Likewise the tyre coming off, surely the fact that it has come off is indicative of some neglect somewhere.
The standard expected of drivers is one of reasonable care, not perfection. Obviously there's a lot of room for argument about how that applies to a particular incident, but in principle if a reasonably careful driver wouldn't have spotted the hazard then a driver who didn't spot it shouldn't beheld liable.

Noger

7,048 posts

135 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
V8RX7 said:
That makes sense to me.
Insurance can't cover deliberate acts otherwise anyone who couldn't sell their car (or house etc) could crash / torch it and claim.
This isn't about own damage, it is about Third Party damage. Very different things. Quite easy to avoid own damage for all sorts of things.

An insurer would normally be required, under Article 75 of the MIB Agreement, to pay for this even if they could escape the requirements of the RTA.

As I correctly guessed, it is merely down to the subrogation that their INSURER cannot recover.

Put simply (I think)...

If you deliberately ram your car into someone, then you are uninsured.

If the person who you hit has only Third Party cover, then your insurer will be forced to pay under Article 75. They will not lose out.

However, if they claim on their insurance (again, they have not lost out), then THEIR insurer will not be entitled to pursue an MIB claim against YOURS. They are big boys, and this will probably all equal out in the end, and we don't want lots of subrogated MIB cases clogging up the courts (this equally applies to other restrictions such as class of use).

Seems quite sensible smile


Pontoneer

3,464 posts

72 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
The first issue I have with the linked report is that surely the past tense of 'spin' is 'spun' and not 'span' , the latter being a noun which describes the distance covered by an object such as a bridge .

The part about negligence I can understand , this I expect will apply regularly when people crash in icy conditions .

I nearly set one of my cars on fire last week ( embarrassing considering my job ) : in replacing the battery , I had fitted a 100Ah one in place of the old 77Ah one ( the larger one is specified for the model ) , but when I closed the bonnet a cable attached to the positive terminal contacted the underside ( the new battery is longer than the old one and the terminal now sits below a 'rib' on the underside of the bonnet ) . Fortunately , I heard the arcing , saw the smoke and immediately lifted the bonnet again ; all I had to do was realign the terminal on the post and angle the feed wire for my audio system downwards to avoid contact . This was entirely my own fault for not checking carefully beforehand , but would have been a genuine accident . I probably would not have tried to claim since my NCB is worth more to me than the value of most of my cars .

hora

18,843 posts

97 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
That poor poor bloke minding his own business frown

I guess he has to go to the criminal injuries route?

surveyor

Original Poster:

7,664 posts

70 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
Noger said:
V8RX7 said:
That makes sense to me.
Insurance can't cover deliberate acts otherwise anyone who couldn't sell their car (or house etc) could crash / torch it and claim.
This isn't about own damage, it is about Third Party damage. Very different things. Quite easy to avoid own damage for all sorts of things.

An insurer would normally be required, under Article 75 of the MIB Agreement, to pay for this even if they could escape the requirements of the RTA.

As I correctly guessed, it is merely down to the subrogation that their INSURER cannot recover.

Put simply (I think)...

If you deliberately ram your car into someone, then you are uninsured.

If the person who you hit has only Third Party cover, then your insurer will be forced to pay under Article 75. They will not lose out.

However, if they claim on their insurance (again, they have not lost out), then THEIR insurer will not be entitled to pursue an MIB claim against YOURS. They are big boys, and this will probably all equal out in the end, and we don't want lots of subrogated MIB cases clogging up the courts (this equally applies to other restrictions such as class of use).

Seems quite sensible smile
Thank you - you explained it really well, and I now understand. Lots of people seem to have missed the distinction on the thread.

Noger

7,048 posts

135 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
hora said:
That poor poor bloke minding his own business frown

I guess he has to go to the criminal injuries route?
HIs losses were not subrogated, and thus not part of this. He would have been paid under Article 75.


A205GTI

361 posts

52 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
This guy worked at my mates place for 3 months when this happened, even he admitted the guy was a bit of a loose cannon. Reason for trying to kill himself, row with his GF!!!
Reply to Topic