3rd party Insurance company not paying mine

[LoonR1]

The red herring thrown in by Spruce Goose is just that. Ignore it

Yes it's likely to be an admin cock up.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ging84 said:

I bet if you were hit by someone having a blackout you'd be even more peeved to find their insurance didn't cover it

Not at all, as I wouldn't expect their insurance to cover it. That's why I have comp insurance, so I'm covered for events that befall me that aren't the fault of anyone else. That could be a tree falling on my car, or a heart attack victim crashing into me.

If someone is negligent and damages my property, then I expect them or their insurers to pay.

[anonymous-user]

LoonR1 said:

The red herring thrown in by Spruce Goose is just that. Ignore it

Yes it's likely to be an admin cock up.

i know you love to see things in such polarized opinion but it was a genuine question, that you have answered in your round about way. thanks

[Nigel Worc's]

LoonR1 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Sometimes your experiences can be different from others Loon.

Back in 2008 I had an own fault accident caused by an undiagnosed medical condition.

I did a lot of damage to other peoples property.

I was paid out within a month, but the other parties issued proceedings against me, nearly twelve months later, as they hadn't been paid.

My insurance then paid out, like they should have done in the begining.

Why do they do that ?

Not true. Your insurers had an automaton defence potentially and were right not to pay out initially. They should've decided earlier whether to pursue the defence though and avoid litigation.

Can you explain that one to me Loon, in a way I can understand ?

In my mind, I did the damage, I cannot even entertain blaming anyone else, they chose to insure me, so in this case they sadly pick up the bill.

It doesn't please me to say that, and I'm still horrified by what happened, but that is the long and short of it, and of course why I and most other people have insurance.

[LoonR1]

To be liable you have to be negligent. There is no negligence in being struck down out of the blue by something unknown and causing damage, therefore you can't be liable. Lots more technical stuff but that's the gist of it.

[Nigel Worc's]

LoonR1 said:

To be liable you have to be negligent. There is no negligence in being struck down out of the blue by something unknown and causing damage, therefore you can't be liable. Lots more technical stuff but that's the gist of it.

Cheers mate.

So, who pays then if they don't ?

Assume (and sadly I know this has happened, it isn't just theoretical, but on this day nothing living got in my way), I'd killed somebody.

[V8forweekends]

Nigel Worc's said:

Cheers mate.

So, who pays then if they don't ?

Assume (and sadly I know this has happened, it isn't just theoretical, but on this day nothing living got in my way), I'd killed somebody.

There's no automatic right to be compensated (by anyone) for random things that "just happen" - that's a facet of law rather than insurance.

Unless they had their own cover, they might not get anything.

[C. Grimsley]

Having kind of the same issue at the minute, it's going court in a couple of weeks, although the other party has admitted liability it seems they don't agree with some of the costs, it looks like the judge gets the final say so, my solicitor feels use the other party has admitted liability it's 80% there it's just a case of going through the costs that have been forwarded and making sure they are reasonable.

After 10 months it's just a joke in my eyes, with all this going on and the length of time it's taken it's just upped the claim ten fold.

Carl

[LoonR1]

The Spruce goose said:

LoonR1 said:

The red herring thrown in by Spruce Goose is just that. Ignore it

Yes it's likely to be an admin cock up.

i know you love to see things in such polarized opinion but it was a genuine question, that you have answered in your round about way. thanks

I did answer it more specifically earlier in the thread.

[LoonR1]

Nigel Worc's said:

Cheers mate.

So, who pays then if they don't ?

Assume (and sadly I know this has happened, it isn't just theoretical, but on this day nothing living got in my way), I'd killed somebody.

If you have cover for whatever damage / injury is caused then you claim on your own insurance. If not, then you're digging into your own pocket.

For example, you crash into my car and I claim on my own car insurance. I can't claim for whiplash or any genuine (that'll upset a few) injury as there was nobody negligent, therefore I have nobody to claim off.

Of course this all depends on the illness being genuinely undiagnosed and no clue as to it happening and loads of other caveats being met. Any hint that there was a likelihood and the defence goes out of the window and you're liable.

[Nigel Worc's]

LoonR1 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Cheers mate.

So, who pays then if they don't ?

Assume (and sadly I know this has happened, it isn't just theoretical, but on this day nothing living got in my way), I'd killed somebody.

If you have cover for whatever damage / injury is caused then you claim on your own insurance. If not, then you're digging into your own pocket.

For example, you crash into my car and I claim on my own car insurance. I can't claim for whiplash or any genuine (that'll upset a few) injury as there was nobody negligent, therefore I have nobody to claim off.

Of course this all depends on the illness being genuinely undiagnosed and no clue as to it happening and loads of other caveats being met. Any hint that there was a likelihood and the defence goes out of the window and you're liable.

Given what you're saying, it is a little surprising they did pay out, although I just expected them to.

I guess this defence isn't used much then ?

[LoonR1]

Nigel Worc's said:

Given what you're saying, it is a little surprising they did pay out, although I just expected them to.

I guess this defence isn't used much then ?

They shouldn't have paid out, as per my earlier posts, or if they weren't going to use this defence then they should've paid out earlier.

It's extremely rare as a defence and, as said previously, the ABI is trying to encourage us to agree not to use this as a defence except in exceptional cases. It has been abused by naive handlers in the past, that has served to frustrate genuine claimants and add unnecessary cost to the at fault insurer.

[scrwright]

C. Grimsley said:

Having kind of the same issue at the minute, it's going court in a couple of weeks, although the other party has admitted liability it seems they don't agree with some of the costs, it looks like the judge gets the final say so, my solicitor feels use the other party has admitted liability it's 80% there it's just a case of going through the costs that have been forwarded and making sure they are reasonable.

After 10 months it's just a joke in my eyes, with all this going on and the length of time it's taken it's just upped the claim ten fold.

Carl

Keep us informed. Have you been paid out by your insurer? Just checked the paperwork & they have paid our car hire costs but haven't paid the cost of the vehicle (less its salvage value it was £1750) Seems daft, I bet if it goes to court the costs will be half that.

[LoonR1]

scrwright said:

Keep us informed. Have you been paid out by your insurer? Just checked the paperwork & they have paid our car hire costs but haven't paid the cost of the vehicle (less its salvage value it was £1750) Seems daft, I bet if it goes to court the costs will be half that.

Your insurer should've paid you. Liability is irrelevant for that payout, that just decides whether they can recover the cost or not.

[C. Grimsley]

scrwright said:

Keep us informed. Have you been paid out by your insurer? Just checked the paperwork & they have paid our car hire costs but haven't paid the cost of the vehicle (less its salvage value it was £1750) Seems daft, I bet if it goes to court the costs will be half that.

No seems it's going to court on the 27th, hopefully that will be the end of my nightmare.

Carl