Minor accident in taxi - Door opened into another taxi.
Discussion
photosnob said:
With respect - if only qualified people gave advice then there wouldn't be a lot of responses to any of the threads on here.
My advice was probably rubbish. I have no legal training, and wouldn't have the aptitude to do it. However it was based on my experiences. Whilst me and e-classy might be wrong technically in law, it doesn't make our advice completely rubbish.
Remember - in court there are usually two barristers arguing a case one. One of them has to be wrong in the eyes of the court. It's just more likely people like me and classy are in the wrong.
When you have been giving incorrect advice as long as Eclassless and totally ignoring any advice given to you. All whilst claiming the whole world is against you, then you will understand.My advice was probably rubbish. I have no legal training, and wouldn't have the aptitude to do it. However it was based on my experiences. Whilst me and e-classy might be wrong technically in law, it doesn't make our advice completely rubbish.
Remember - in court there are usually two barristers arguing a case one. One of them has to be wrong in the eyes of the court. It's just more likely people like me and classy are in the wrong.
Mk3Spitfire said:
The point was aimed more at Eclassy who I don't recall ever posting anything relevant, accurate or helpful.
It was also directed more towards specific advice requested as opposed to opinions.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm sure yours are just as valid and worthwhile as anyone else's.
And if someone's opinion is stating something that is not true as Eclassy did then he needs to be told he is incorrect before some poor sod believes him and thinks wwhatwas posted is correct. It was also directed more towards specific advice requested as opposed to opinions.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm sure yours are just as valid and worthwhile as anyone else's.
The issue is he gets all defensive and starts throwing his toys about at the person doing it, such as telling Breadvan to get a website.
Oh well I suppose if anyone takes legal advice from a forum they're as stupid as the person giving it who then when challenged says they weren't.
Thanks chaps - all 'opinions' are considered and welcome... I won't take anything as gospel!
You've raised some good points such as 'why now' and get a detailed breakdown of costs. Will be interested to find out who has instructed the solicitor and I'll ask him if he can find out who the insurer is.
I haven't heard from him so I'm none the wiser at the moment! I think he's more than happy to 'pay his dues' - it just seems like a lot of money for 'no visible damage'. I genuinely think he would have sorted it then and there but the two drivers were making a bit of a scene (arguing with each other with neither seemingly annoyed at him), right outside his nice hotel, in front of the doorman (wonder if he remembers) so wanted to get inside after a long flight!
You've raised some good points such as 'why now' and get a detailed breakdown of costs. Will be interested to find out who has instructed the solicitor and I'll ask him if he can find out who the insurer is.
I haven't heard from him so I'm none the wiser at the moment! I think he's more than happy to 'pay his dues' - it just seems like a lot of money for 'no visible damage'. I genuinely think he would have sorted it then and there but the two drivers were making a bit of a scene (arguing with each other with neither seemingly annoyed at him), right outside his nice hotel, in front of the doorman (wonder if he remembers) so wanted to get inside after a long flight!
No apparent liability issues so he's just interested in the price.
The lost time is good as hopefully no credit hire taxi (for that driver anyway), there may well be a claim for the other driver's damage. Also, no personal injury? (yet).
OP's friend needs to know how much is currently being claimed, for what and by whom. He might think price a little steep although that's not really unusual, yet if it was his car someone else damaged I imagine he wouldn't want it repaired on the cheap.
The lost time is good as hopefully no credit hire taxi (for that driver anyway), there may well be a claim for the other driver's damage. Also, no personal injury? (yet).
OP's friend needs to know how much is currently being claimed, for what and by whom. He might think price a little steep although that's not really unusual, yet if it was his car someone else damaged I imagine he wouldn't want it repaired on the cheap.
dom9 said:
I think he's more than happy to 'pay his dues' - it just seems like a lot of money for 'no visible damage'.
The two most pertinent points there^.1. IIRC, the onus is actually on the passing driver to ensure he leaves enough room for an errant door on a "parked" car to be opened without contact being made, as ridiculous as it sounds. I'm sure there was a thread on here where one of the parties was a police officer and that turned out to be the case (my memory may be playing tricks on me here though). The driver SHOULD have proper insurance i.e. the kind that will pay out for damage howsoever caused in carrying out his trade. If he doesn't, that's his tough titty which is why your friend needs to find out exactly WHO is instructing this solicitor; the driver or his ins. co.
2. If there was no visible damage it's pretty damn unlikely that the electrics have failed due to the impact, so how and why has this claim materialised? A breakdown of dates and costs will clarify this.
Aretnap said:
AIUI in incidents like this the insurance policy of the vehicle he was in will generally cover the liabilities of the passengers as well as those of the driver. For example, picking an insurer at random, Direct Line say ( Page 12) that they will cover the liabilities of "anyone you allow to use but not drive your car" and "anyone who is in or getting into or out of your car".
So the OP's friend should be getting in touch with the insurers of the vehicle that he was in - if he can find out who they are. Hopefully he can pass the matter over to them.
You are quite right, but although they have to cover it, does that preclude them from trying to recover their outlay from the person responsible? It could be them suing the passenger.So the OP's friend should be getting in touch with the insurers of the vehicle that he was in - if he can find out who they are. Hopefully he can pass the matter over to them.
If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You are quite right, but although they have to cover it, does that preclude them from trying to recover their outlay from the person responsible? It could be them suing the passenger.
If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
Once there is a claim how can you save your no claims bonus by then suing your passenger? If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
rigga said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You are quite right, but although they have to cover it, does that preclude them from trying to recover their outlay from the person responsible? It could be them suing the passenger.
If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
Once there is a claim how can you save your no claims bonus by then suing your passenger? If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
Just like having a non fault accident on a comp policy. They repair your car, but if they recover those costs from the tp, your bonus is allowed.
If it was the taxi driver who opened his own door into another car, would his insurance pay out and then chase him for the costs?
When a driver hits someone from behind, he is usually at fault and most people on here will tell you its because he wasnt paying attention, wasnt travelling in a distance safe enough to stop e.t.c but his insurance company will still pay out.
How come insurance companies dont have big depts that seek to recover costs from insured people who are liable like in the scenario above which plays out on a daily basis.
It is not unreasonable to open the door of a taxi infront of a hotel. It is unreasonable to open the door of a taxi travelling at 70mph on the M25.
When a driver hits someone from behind, he is usually at fault and most people on here will tell you its because he wasnt paying attention, wasnt travelling in a distance safe enough to stop e.t.c but his insurance company will still pay out.
How come insurance companies dont have big depts that seek to recover costs from insured people who are liable like in the scenario above which plays out on a daily basis.
It is not unreasonable to open the door of a taxi infront of a hotel. It is unreasonable to open the door of a taxi travelling at 70mph on the M25.
Eclassy said:
It is not unreasonable to open the door of a taxi infront of a hotel. It is unreasonable to open the door of a taxi travelling at 70mph on the M25.
I would say so but is he willing to let it go to court, as unlikely as they might be to pursue that recourse? I suspect not.Thanks for the posts over night, chaps. Nothing from him in my inbox this morning!
Perhaps once he reminded them he lived abroad, they backed off and decided NOT to send anything? They don't have his home address, just his email, apparently!
A bit frustrating though as I'd definitely like to understand who is claiming against him. Anyway, he is prepared to ask them for all the details of the damage and invoice etc if/ when he hears from them!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
AIUI in incidents like this the insurance policy of the vehicle he was in will generally cover the liabilities of the passengers as well as those of the driver. For example, picking an insurer at random, Direct Line say ( Page 12) that they will cover the liabilities of "anyone you allow to use but not drive your car" and "anyone who is in or getting into or out of your car".
So the OP's friend should be getting in touch with the insurers of the vehicle that he was in - if he can find out who they are. Hopefully he can pass the matter over to them.
You are quite right, but although they have to cover it, does that preclude them from trying to recover their outlay from the person responsible? So the OP's friend should be getting in touch with the insurers of the vehicle that he was in - if he can find out who they are. Hopefully he can pass the matter over to them.
It doesn't strike me as fundamentally any different from one of your named drivers driving carelessly and clipping the wing mirror of a parked car (and notice that the policy I linked to mentions passengers in the same breath as named drivers) - the only difference is that the insurer doesn't ask for a list of named passengers, and extends cover to anyone you choose to give a lift to.
Twig said:
If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
Given that your passenger is most likely a friend or relative of yours, how sure are you about that? If your wife opened the door into the path of a cyclist, resulting in serious injury and a six figure PI claim, would you want your insurer suing her to recover the money? Whose name is the house in? I'd rather she was fully covered myself.An own damage claim caused by the passanger's negligence might be slightly different but I'd assume that was analogous to named driver wrapping your pride and joy round a tree, ie you can claim on the policy if you have comprehensive cover, but your NCB will be affected and the insurer won't be chasing the driver (though you might be able to guilt trip him into contributing to next year's premium).
Aretnap said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
AIUI in incidents like this the insurance policy of the vehicle he was in will generally cover the liabilities of the passengers as well as those of the driver. For example, picking an insurer at random, Direct Line say ( Page 12) that they will cover the liabilities of "anyone you allow to use but not drive your car" and "anyone who is in or getting into or out of your car".
So the OP's friend should be getting in touch with the insurers of the vehicle that he was in - if he can find out who they are. Hopefully he can pass the matter over to them.
You are quite right, but although they have to cover it, does that preclude them from trying to recover their outlay from the person responsible? So the OP's friend should be getting in touch with the insurers of the vehicle that he was in - if he can find out who they are. Hopefully he can pass the matter over to them.
It doesn't strike me as fundamentally any different from one of your named drivers driving carelessly and clipping the wing mirror of a parked car (and notice that the policy I linked to mentions passengers in the same breath as named drivers) - the only difference is that the insurer doesn't ask for a list of named passengers, and extends cover to anyone you choose to give a lift to.
Twig said:
If my passenger opened my car door on to a tp vehicle. I'd expect my insurers to settle the tp claim against me, as per the policy, and then sue my passenger for their costs, to save my ncb.
Given that your passenger is most likely a friend or relative of yours, how sure are you about that? If your wife opened the door into the path of a cyclist, resulting in serious injury and a six figure PI claim, would you want your insurer suing her to recover the money? Whose name is the house in? I'd rather she was fully covered myself.An own damage claim caused by the passanger's negligence might be slightly different but I'd assume that was analogous to named driver wrapping your pride and joy round a tree, ie you can claim on the policy if you have comprehensive cover, but your NCB will be affected and the insurer won't be chasing the driver (though you might be able to guilt trip him into contributing to next year's premium).
I really don't know the definitive answer to this, if an insurer can pursue a passenger for tp damage the insurer has had to pay. Assuming the passenger wasn't a friend or relative of the driver and the driver wanted them pursued.
If you're right, then it can't be the taxi driver's insurers doing the pursuing. And the OP's mate needs to refer the correspondence back to the taxi firm so the taxi driver's motor insurers can deal with it.
Boo152 said:
Not sure if this has already been mentioned here, but could [either] of the taxi drivers be using their insurance legal cover to claim for uninsured loss?
I doubt it. It's not an uninsured loss. It's an insured loss, as tp damage caused by passengers is covered. Any no excess would apply as it's a tp claim. So I can't see any uninsured loss here.Breadvan72 said:
He's a cabbie, not a nanny. If the punter chooses to get out on the trafficky side and maybe doesn't look carefully, that's not the driver's fault.
From reading the OP, the driver parked facing oncoming traffic. Surely that is what caused the pax to open the door into 'live' traffic?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff