insurance query - both my cars crashed into each other

[InitialDave]

Having read your other thread, I'd be inclined to tell her she's paying for it, but that's probably not workable.

[Sheepshanks]

TooMany2cvs said:

So that's about £3k that way, vs £5k cash hit.

I doubt it'll make £500 difference to your policy for being not-at-fault hit while parked. It'll make a difference (for me, a few years ago, it was more than 2 x 3pt photos), sure, but nowhere near that much.

Agree - but he'd have to cross the bridge of the uncertainty on the validity of his wife's cover.

[theboss]

I don't think the validity of her cover as a named driver is in question - the uncertainty is around whether I would end up claiming on one policy or both, whether I oay one excess or two and how badly it affects my future insurance premiums and no claims status.

I'm getting rinsed either way, it seems.

[Sheepshanks]

theboss said:

I don't think the validity of her cover as a named driver is in question - the uncertainty is around whether I would end up claiming on one policy or both, whether I oay one excess or two and how badly it affects my future insurance premiums and no claims status.

I'm getting rinsed either way, it seems.

If you're OK with the cover then I'd claim. I don't think the hit will be as bad as you fear and there's always the possibility you could need to claim again.

[stevensdrs]

I have 3 non fault accidents recorded in the last 5 years, (rear ended) and have suffered no increase in premiums over that time. In fact the insurance cost went down after the first one. I don't get this worry about having a higher premium imposed as it has never happened to me.

[Ahbefive]

stevensdrs said:

I have 3 non fault accidents recorded in the last 5 years, (rear ended) and have suffered no increase in premiums over that time. In fact the insurance cost went down after the first one. I don't get this worry about having a higher premium imposed as it has never happened to me.

It happened to me. Premium went up considerably when I had 3 non fault claims in my record.

[KevinCamaroSS]

theboss said:

I don't think the validity of her cover as a named driver is in question - the uncertainty is around whether I would end up claiming on one policy or both, whether I oay one excess or two and how badly it affects my future insurance premiums and no claims status.

I'm getting rinsed either way, it seems.

Why would you be claiming on both? The Golf insurance policy is the one you claim from for all repairs. Do do that much damage how fast was she going?

[paulrockliffe]

Interesting to see what the insurance do about the premium in this case, it's not the same as a normal accident of this scale, if it's a related party on the drive it's much more likely to happen again. I'd be conscious of that when deciding what the likely costs will be.

My wife reversed into a friends Mini, while friend was in our car on our drive while I was frantically beeping the horn and trying to work out how to put it in reverse. She didn't believe the reversing sensors or something. Obviously didn't look either! She hit pretty hard, but did no damage at all, yours must have been going quite quick!

[theboss]

KevinCamaroSS said:

theboss said:

I don't think the validity of her cover as a named driver is in question - the uncertainty is around whether I would end up claiming on one policy or both, whether I oay one excess or two and how badly it affects my future insurance premiums and no claims status.

I'm getting rinsed either way, it seems.

Why would you be claiming on both? The Golf insurance policy is the one you claim from for all repairs. Do do that much damage how fast was she going?

There have been some suggestions both on and off PH that the insurance company might force me to claim on each policy for repair to the respective cars. Obviously I won't know until I speak to the insurance company.

I'll have a quote for the M5 this afternoon at which point I can make a decision on how to proceed.

She had to reverse about 50ft across a clear wide gravel space, she's done it thousands of times before with and without my car parked there, I think she just failed to engage her brain on this occasion. I had parked slightly further back than usual and my car was in a shaded area and is covered in dirt so effectively matte black. It's just about conceivable that she set off in 'autopilot' and threw the car back without even looking. I doubt she was doing more than about 10mph but hit the M5 at a 45 degree angle so the forces would have been over a much smaller area than if she hit it square on.

[CYMR0]

My view on this is that the policyholder is not the same as the insured. In fact, the thread title is misleading - the OP's cars didn't crash into each other; the OP's wife crashed into his car while insured under his policy.

Had the OP been driving the Golf, then it would be a comprehensive claim on both policies.

However, the OP has paid to insure a risk, namely that his wife would cause damage to someone other than herself (or the property that he gave to her, insuring that risk comprehensively under a separate head of the policy). (The fact that this is a lease isn't relevant here).

This is similar to a personal injury claim if the OP had been a passenger when the wife was driving. In either event, if this went to court, the case would be OP -v- wife, not OP -v- OP (which would of course be impossible). As such, the OP's status here is as third party; the fact that he is also the policyholder is not relevant, unless that is specifically excluded by the wording of the policy, and that wording is also valid.

[Aretnap]

CYMR0 said:

This is similar to a personal injury claim if the OP had been a passenger when the wife was driving. In either event, if this went to court, the case would be OP -v- wife, not OP -v- OP (which would of course be impossible). As such, the OP's status here is as third party; the fact that he is also the policyholder is not relevant, unless that is specifically excluded by the wording of the policy, and that wording is also valid.

That was my understanding as well. However I do note that Admiral, for one do have an exclusion in their liability section relating to "any damage to property belonging to, or held in trust by, or in the charge or control of a person claiming to be insured under this section" and also "any loss or damage to property in the care of the policyholder or any person entitled to drive on the current Certificate of Motor Insurance". ( Page 20-21) That would seem to exclude the driver's liability for damage caused to the policyholder's property. So if the Golf's policy has an exclusion like that, and it stands up, then the OP might have to make two claims on two policies.

Admiral can usually be counted on to have every exclusion under the sun, so things may be different if the OP has a better insurance company - I don't see an equivalent clause in, eg, Direct Line's documents.

Thinking out loud I wonder if such an exclusion is actually legal - the Road Traffic Act allows the insurer to exclude the driver's liability for property in his own custody or under his own control (so if you're carrying your friend's stuff in your car, you can't claim for it if it's damaged when you drive into a wall) - but it doesn't seem to have a similar provision covering the policyholder's property where the policyholder is not the driver.

[CYMR0]

Aretnap said:

CYMR0 said:

This is similar to a personal injury claim if the OP had been a passenger when the wife was driving. In either event, if this went to court, the case would be OP -v- wife, not OP -v- OP (which would of course be impossible). As such, the OP's status here is as third party; the fact that he is also the policyholder is not relevant, unless that is specifically excluded by the wording of the policy, and that wording is also valid.

That was my understanding as well. However I do note that Admiral, for one do have an exclusion in their liability section relating to "any damage to property belonging to, or held in trust by, or in the charge or control of a person claiming to be insured under this section" and also "any loss or damage to property in the care of the policyholder or any person entitled to drive on the current Certificate of Motor Insurance". ( Page 20-21) That would seem to exclude the driver's liability for damage caused to the policyholder's property. So if the Golf's policy has an exclusion like that, and it stands up, then the OP might have to make two claims on two policies.

Admiral can usually be counted on to have every exclusion under the sun, so things may be different if the OP has a better insurance company - I don't see an equivalent clause in, eg, Direct Line's documents.

Thinking out loud I wonder if such an exclusion is actually legal - the Road Traffic Act allows the insurer to exclude the driver's liability for property in his own custody or under his own control (so if you're carrying your friend's stuff in your car, you can't claim for it if it's damaged when you drive into a wall) - but it doesn't seem to have a similar provision covering the policyholder's property where the policyholder is not the driver.

Interesting. On a literal reading, it also means that, if I rear end a car owned, insured and driven on a road (or other public place) by a named driver on my Admiral policy, there is no cover in place. I cannot see that holding up whatsoever and I agree, any person who has an insurance policy in place that covers their use of the car, must be covered against any civil liability. In this case, OP's wife is clearly civilly liable for the damage to that property, and therefore the only question is whether it is in her custody or control (the Golf is, but that has comprehensive cover).

On top of all that, it sounds very much as though the accident occurred away from the road and therefore a widely drafted clause like this would not be invalidated by the RTA, but would still be subject to UCTA and any regulations governing the insurance industry.

[theboss]

OK the BMW is coming in at £1650 and the Golf £2350 so exactly £4k of damage should one use franchised repair centres.

I'll pick up the phone to direct line and see what they say.

[W8PMC]

theboss said:

OK the BMW is coming in at £1650 and the Golf £2350 so exactly £4k of damage should one use franchised repair centres.

I'll pick up the phone to direct line and see what they say.

Now you've got the dealer quotes with i assume the relevant parts that need replacing, head to an indy with that information & i'd hazard a guess that quote will reduce by 50%.

At £2-2.5k to repair both, it may be prudent to avoid any insurance involvement as i'd guess with 0 NCB the insurance for the Golf could be expensive already.

[Carlson W6]

I would deal with the situation like this-

Suck it up and take the financial hit myself without involving
blood sucking insurers who will hang me out to dry for the next five years
regardless of which suggested workflow taken.

I really can't be bothered dealing with those a**holes with anything more
than a call to renew a premium every year.

They make anything else just too painful.

[imdeman87]

theboss said:

OK the BMW is coming in at £1650 and the Golf £2350 so exactly £4k of damage should one use franchised repair centres.

I'll pick up the phone to direct line and see what they say.

Now it's just a case of sitting down with a pen and paper to do the maths.

Find out the excess on the Golf's policy.

Then go on a comparison search website and do 2 identical searches for the M5, one with no claim declared and the other with a non-fault claim totalling £4000 - keep NCB the same on both and use your normal details etc. The difference in the 2 prices will give you an idea of the extra cost in premiums for year 1. Then go back and edit the quote with the non-fault claim and change the date to over 1 year ago and see what that price is, then edit that quote again with the claim date going back 2+ years etc. The above is just to calculate the approximate cost of having a non-fault claim on the M5 for 3-5 years. I wouldn't go any further than 4 years, will hardly make a difference after that many years. Above sounds like a lot of work, but once you're created the initial quote then it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to edit subsequent quotes - 30 minutes at most.

Add all the above figures (plus excess cost for claim) and you'll have have a very good idea of the true cost to yourself over the next few years for a non-fault claim on your policies.

I suspect it'll work out significantly cheaper just to claim on your insurance and to take the 'hit' with the increase in your premiums (unless your excess costs is £2k+ on the Golf).

[woodyTVR]

When my car got bumped my insurance company wanted to use their own contracted bodyshop. I had to tell them I wanted to use a Franchised dealer and once they agreed they said they couldn't give me a loan car if went down that route.

I had to use their own shop as I needed a car and it took six weeks to change two wheels and repair a scuffed bumper. When I collected it, the lower (factory) splitter was missing of the front bumper. They took another two weeks to sort it.

Personally I'd try an indy repair shop that's recommended to you or you could be in the same boat.

[Ahbefive]

Yep, surely even calling the insurers and notifying them of what happened will result in higher premiums as you have had an accident even if you haven't claimed yet?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

nutsytvr said:

You may find that neither car is covered. Many insurance policies exclude damage caused by vehicles owned by the insured.

Name one!!

Utter rubbish.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Wish said:

If you are the policy holder on both cars you have to make a separate claim from policy.

Correct.

Each policy will cover the accidental damage to the car it's insuring. You cannot claim the damage for the stationary car on the Golf policy as you aren't a third party.

So it's 2 claims, 1 for "my car was damaged when it hit another car I own" and 1 for "my car was damaged when it was hit by another car I own".

A 2 excesses I'm afraid.