RTA on the bike today - Insurance help

[Prizam]

Still waiting on statement of facts and an inspection. AND 3rd party to accept liability.

Thankfully the whiteness came good and agreed with my version of events.

The Suzuki Bandet 1200 i have as a rental really is a hateful thing.

[defblade]

Prizam said:

AND 3rd party to accept liability.

My 3rd party (also bike crash) have just decided their insured was liable... after 5 1/2 months, with witness and police report on my side. Another claim that someone's trying to make against me has been up in the air for over 2 years now! So settle back and try not to get wound up about it all

[Nezquick]

fezst said:

LoonR1 said:

Nope, they'd just deal as normal. Never has been an issue and never will be. We regularly had claims come through from solicitors for accidents that were nearing limitation (c3 years) and that was the first we'd know about them. We dealt as normal.

No adverse consequences at all.

That's surprising, but interesting.

It's also not strictly correct. Whilst an insurer will not "void" a policy for failing to report an accident, they can refuse to indemnify their insured. Whilst the insurer will still ultimately "pick up the tab" for the claim in the first instance, they will protect their position so they are able recover any money they pay out from their policyholder if they think it is justifiable to do so.

[LoonR1]

Nezquick said:

fezst said:

LoonR1 said:

Nope, they'd just deal as normal. Never has been an issue and never will be. We regularly had claims come through from solicitors for accidents that were nearing limitation (c3 years) and that was the first we'd know about them. We dealt as normal.

No adverse consequences at all.

That's surprising, but interesting.

It's also not strictly correct. Whilst an insurer will not "void" a policy for failing to report an accident, they can refuse to indemnify their insured. Whilst the insurer will still ultimately "pick up the tab" for the claim in the first instance, they will protect their position so they are able recover any money they pay out from their policyholder if they think it is justifiable to do so.

Wrong on so many levels. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.

[Nezquick]

LoonR1 said:

Nezquick said:

fezst said:

LoonR1 said:

Nope, they'd just deal as normal. Never has been an issue and never will be. We regularly had claims come through from solicitors for accidents that were nearing limitation (c3 years) and that was the first we'd know about them. We dealt as normal.

No adverse consequences at all.

That's surprising, but interesting.

It's also not strictly correct. Whilst an insurer will not "void" a policy for failing to report an accident, they can refuse to indemnify their insured. Whilst the insurer will still ultimately "pick up the tab" for the claim in the first instance, they will protect their position so they are able recover any money they pay out from their policyholder if they think it is justifiable to do so.

Wrong on so many levels. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.

Loon, time and again I see you commenting on insurance threads and whilst 99% of the time your posts are accurate (albeit rather confrontational in the way they're written), in this case you're just not correct.

Indeed, I have acted for insurers who have refused to indemnify for this very reason (i.e. failure to report an accident). If an insurer isn't told about an accident, they can't investigate and if they can't investigate their position may have been prejudiced.

This is the last time I'll post on this thread as I don't want it to descend into an "I'm right....no I'm right" type of argument which I just don't have the patience for.

[LoonR1]

Nezquick said:

Loon, time and again I see you commenting on insurance threads and whilst 99% of the time your posts are accurate (albeit rather confrontational in the way they're written), in this case you're just not correct.

Indeed, I have acted for insurers who have refused to indemnify for this very reason (i.e. failure to report an accident). If an insurer isn't told about an accident, they can't investigate and if they can't investigate their position may have been prejudiced.

This is the last time I'll post on this thread as I don't want it to descend into an "I'm right....no I'm right" type of argument which I just don't have the patience for.

Sorry, but in over two decades in claims
In senior positions we have never once rejected a TP claim due to late notification. There is no burden on them to notify, as they are not contracted to us, they just need to beat limitation.

There is no chance of a right to recover from our insured.

Fair enough that the insured may get their own damage claim knocked back but they rarely claim for this so late in the day.

If you don't want to discuss this then fine, but it somy doesn't happen.

[Nezquick]

LoonR1 said:

Sorry, but in over two decades in claims
In senior positions we have never once rejected a TP claim due to late notification. There is no burden on them to notify, as they are not contracted to us, they just need to beat limitation.

There is no chance of a right to recover from our insured.

Fair enough that the insured may get their own damage claim knocked back but they rarely claim for this so late in the day.

If you don't want to discuss this then fine, but it somy doesn't happen.

I know I said I wouldn't respond but.....


.....I think we're at cross purposes here.

You seem to be talking about a third party claim being received (I.e. a claim from someone your insured has driven into) and that you will get on and deal with that claim without any issues. From that point of view, I completely agree with you as an insurer is obliged to deal with that claim.

I'm talking about what happens when YOUR insured doesn't report an accident to you and you then receive a claim through from a third party say 2 1/2 years later. You haven't been able to investigate it. It may have been a good claim to fight. However, you now have no evidence as your insured didn't report it. In that case, in my experience, insurers have refused to indemnify THEIR insured due to failing to report.

Can we now agree this is correct?

[LoonR1]

Nezquick said:

LoonR1 said:

Sorry, but in over two decades in claims
In senior positions we have never once rejected a TP claim due to late notification. There is no burden on them to notify, as they are not contracted to us, they just need to beat limitation.

There is no chance of a right to recover from our insured.

Fair enough that the insured may get their own damage claim knocked back but they rarely claim for this so late in the day.

If you don't want to discuss this then fine, but it somy doesn't happen.

I know I said I wouldn't respond but.....


.....I think we're at cross purposes here.

You seem to be talking about a third party claim being received (I.e. a claim from someone your insured has driven into) and that you will get on and deal with that claim without any issues. From that point of view, I completely agree with you as an insurer is obliged to deal with that claim.

I'm talking about what happens when YOUR insured doesn't report an accident to you and you then receive a claim through from a third party say 2 1/2 years later. You haven't been able to investigate it. It may have been a good claim to fight. However, you now have no evidence as your insured didn't report it. In that case, in my experience, insurers have refused to indemnify THEIR insured due to failing to report.

Can we now agree this is correct?

Afraid not. The type of claim you are talking about is exactly the type of claim I mean too. The first notification of it is by a TP and getting close to limitation. Insurers try to contact their insured, if no response they deal as fault. No attempt to recover losses, no issue with indemnity at all. Policyholder has claimed logged against them on CUE, but that's often irrelevant as it's often so far down the line that the additional cost is negligible. We wouldn't pay the insured damage, but they haven't claimed for it and nor are they likely to.

There is no way an insurer will try to deal as RTA, which is what you're suggesting. The policy was in force at the time of the incident, there was no indemnity issue then, there can be no indemnity issue now. The lack of notification by the insured is simply a breach of their contract, but you can't backdate this lack of notification to try to recover your outlay from the insured. You can only refuse to cover the insurer's own losses.

In fact I'm keen to know how you deal with this, as it's a major breach of ICOB (now the FCA claims handling principles) for you to do this.

[Prizam]

Quick update.

Liability still not appointed, even though i have witness backing me up.

Been nearly a month now without the bike and i don't think it has even been inspected yet. The hire bike (Bandit 1250) is horrific and hurts me to ride it.

Any tricks i can use to speed this along a bit? I just want my bike back and some cash to replace the damaged clothing and hat.

[creampuff]

Unless the other party admits liability, you may just have to wait. Your insurer will probably write to the at-fault parties insurer suggesting they just admit liability and cough up, but this could take a while. If the other driver does not respond to their insurer, it will take even longer. Give your insurer a ring and check out what is happening and ask if they can write to the other insurer or similar.

When somebody crashed into Mrs Puff a while back, the entire palaver took about 9 months.

[LoonR1]

I'm assuming you're fully comp.

If so liability agreement (not appointment!) is moot. Your insurer is contractually obliged to repair your bike. Liability can continue to be discussed before, during and after the repair.

The injury, helmet, clothing, excess and other uninsured losses can only
Be claimed from the other insurer if they accept liability. That will have to wait.

You need to get your bike repaired or written off. If I were the other insurer I'd probably not pay your hire bike bill as you're waiting for something that you shouldn't be waiting for before repairing your bike.

Talk to your insurer and tell them to get the repair sorted

[Prizam]

Yep fully comp.

Already told them to just sort the bike and we can sort out liability later. They seem reluctant.

Had a call from them about 10 minutes ago... Still chasing the 3rd party insurance, they have sent over witness statements and quotes but the 3rd party's insurance is still yet to review.

They also mentioned that if accepted, i could have a cheque paid to me for the repair amount and have a garage of my choosing do the work... seemed odd. Although i would prefer to go this route so i can get it done by a proper BMW garage and have some warrintee work completed at the same time.

[LoonR1]

Prizam said:

Yep fully comp.

Already told them to just sort the bike and we can sort out liability later. They seem reluctant.

Had a call from them about 10 minutes ago... Still chasing the 3rd party insurance, they have sent over witness statements and quotes but the 3rd party's insurance is still yet to review.

They also mentioned that if accepted, i could have a cheque paid to me for the repair amount and have a garage of my choosing do the work... seemed odd. Although i would prefer to go this route so i can get it done by a proper BMW garage and have some warrintee work completed at the same time.

Who are you insured with? This is bks. They can't be reluctant, somjpust tell them to repair it. And don't accept a cheque, they cover it all, less your excess amd you can choose the garage unless your policy specifically states that only they can choose the garage.

[Prizam]

Caroline Teeth... or something similar.

Told to repair it under my policy, explicitly. But have not yet done. mind you, if they can do it without me paying my stupid excess it would be a bonus.

The problem is... its underwritten by some one else, instructing some one else to store the bike. instructing some one else to see and price up the bike / repair. With a separate legal department. Some random other PI firm and a doctors now chasing me for an appointment.

And apparently no one can talk to anybody else. Apart from the ambulance chasers... they are well connected and im getting 2/3 calls a day.

[LoonR1]

Prizam said:

Caroline Teeth... or something similar.

Told to repair it under my policy, explicitly. But have not yet done. mind you, if they can do it without me paying my stupid excess it would be a bonus.

The problem is... its underwritten by some one else, instructing some one else to store the bike. instructing some one else to see and price up the bike / repair. With a separate legal department. Some random other PI firm and a doctors now chasing me for an appointment.

And apparently no one can talk to anybody else. Apart from the ambulance chasers... they are well connected and im getting 2/3 calls a day.

This is quite frustrating. Carole Nash (like the majority of bike "insurers") are a broker. They are however able to handle claims themselves, as such they instruct repairs. They've handed you off to Plantec, who are now trying to coin it in and line their own pockets with a lengthy hire bill. Ring Carole Nash back, tell them you have a fully comp policy amd that they must repair it. If they refuse then let me know and I'll send you a PM with all the relevant stuff to get it sorted immediately.

[Prizam]

LoonR1 said:

This is quite frustrating. Carole Nash (like the majority of bike "insurers") are a broker. They are however able to handle claims themselves, as such they instruct repairs. They've handed you off to Plantec, who are now trying to coin it in and line their own pockets with a lengthy hire bill. Ring Carole Nash back, tell them you have a fully comp policy amd that they must repair it. If they refuse then let me know and I'll send you a PM with all the relevant stuff to get it sorted immediately.

I have been on to CN, the underwriters Mark study, or something... and Plantec telling them to repair the bike. nothing appears to have happened. Whilst i guess i could be a little more forceful, i don't have an address to send the invoice for my time too. And they wouldn't like my rates.

[LoonR1]

Prizam said:

I have been on to CN, the underwriters Mark study, or something... and Plantec telling them to repair the bike. nothing appears to have happened. Whilst i guess i could be a little more forceful, i don't have an address to send the invoice for my time too. And they wouldn't like my rates.

Now you're being daft. Who is repairing the bike? If a recognised repairer then they will invoice CN directly, if you're doing it then why haven't you already done it?youre complaining about the lack of repair and now you're hinting that you want to do it.

I'll offer help, but not if you're just playing games, if you are you're on your own.

[Prizam]

LoonR1 said:

Now you're being daft. Who is repairing the bike? If a recognised repairer then they will invoice CN directly, if you're doing it then why haven't you already done it?youre complaining about the lack of repair and now you're hinting that you want to do it.

I'll offer help, but not if you're just playing games, if you are you're on your own.

You misunderstand me, sir. I am merely jesting at sending them an invoice for my time and all of the phoning round i am having to do. They should be able to talk to one another them selves without me having to become a google insurance expert.

Plantec are repairing the bike, who will invoice Marker Study underwriters, who i guess will do something with CN.

It is Plantec who suggested they could send me a cheque so i can get the bike repaired at a garage of my choosing. But as previously stated... this sounds fishy to me.

[LoonR1]

Prizam said:

You misunderstand me, sir. I am merely jesting at sending them an invoice for my time and all of the phoning round i am having to do. They should be able to talk to one another them selves without me having to become a google insurance expert.

Plantec are repairing the bike, who will invoice Marker Study underwriters, who i guess will do something with CN.

It is Plantec who suggested they could send me a cheque so i can get the bike repaired at a garage of my choosing. But as previously stated... this sounds fishy to me.

Don't accept the cheque. Ring Plantec and tell them to repair your bike as you have a legal contract which states that they will repair your bike irrespective of fault.

[Prizam]

LoonR1 said:

Prizam said:

You misunderstand me, sir. I am merely jesting at sending them an invoice for my time and all of the phoning round i am having to do. They should be able to talk to one another them selves without me having to become a google insurance expert.

Plantec are repairing the bike, who will invoice Marker Study underwriters, who i guess will do something with CN.

It is Plantec who suggested they could send me a cheque so i can get the bike repaired at a garage of my choosing. But as previously stated... this sounds fishy to me.

Don't accept the cheque. Ring Plantec and tell them to repair your bike as you have a legal contract which states that they will repair your bike irrespective of fault.

Did this, kicked off a bit. Had a call yesterday saying my insurance company had approved the parts list and they were going to crack on ordering parts and get the bike fixed.

Only been a bloody month for them to get round to ordering bits for it. i guess i should have gone direct to the 3rd party's insurance and hopefully go some better service. Having said that, if there is any truth in what my insurance company / plantec are saying then the 3rd party insurer must be a bloody nightmare to deal with!

Whats the bet its another month before the parts come in?