Insurance repair problem - third party

[Tje]

Thank you for the helpful advice from some of you.

They contacted me this morning and have asked for me to hold off on anything further until the person now dealing with it has reviewed the case in full and can offer some solutions.

[mikeveal]

To which the answer should be:
The car is booked in for work at a garage of my choice. Pay or I'll sue.

[NGee]

havoc said:

I wish people wouldn't post opinions like the one above without knowing something of contract law.

1) 3P 'injured' (in the legal sense) the OP
2) 3P has a contract of insurance to indemnify him from consequences of such things
3) Insurer therefore has a legal duty of care to the OP
4) Insurer nominated the garage as a way of satisfying their d-o-c
5) Garage has failed to fulfil their obligations satisfactorily
6) ...so the insurer hasn't satisfied their obligations, and by extension neither has the 3P


So, the OP should go after either the 3P (who has the original obligation to put the OP back in the pre-accident position), or the insurer (who has a duty of care to him but no contract). The garage has no d-o-c and no contract with the OP, so absolutely NO point in chasing them.

Very interested in your reply, I assume you know more about these things than I do. As I said it was only a belief and as you said it was an opinion, no one said it was a fact.

So let's say you are driving down the road in a sensible and legal manner when, for whatever reason (maybe pothole, dog runs in road, momentary lapse of concentration) you swerve and hit a Ferrari. You contact your insurance company who pay out for the repairs to the Ferrari.
A year later the Ferrari driver knocks on your door and says "I took my car to a back-street muppet who messed it up, I now want to take it to a second garage and want you to pay £20,000 to get it sorted properly... oh, and I might come back again next year if they don't do it properly either".

Would you be expected to pay the £20,000?

If so, what is the point of having insurance if the third party can make a personal claim against you?

[Tje]

The work should be Covered by a warranty so would most likely get repaired.

I haven't had my car back for more than 2 weeks at a time, as it's been in their bodyshop for repairs, repairs and repairs. I just got it delivered back to me Saturday morning. They inspected it yesterday and agreed their is still issues that need sorting.

Not quite the same as deciding a year later the repairs aren't good enough.

[catman]

NGee said:

Very interested in your reply, I assume you know more about these things than I do. As I said it was only a belief and as you said it was an opinion, no one said it was a fact.

So let's say you are driving down the road in a sensible and legal manner when, for whatever reason (maybe pothole, dog runs in road, momentary lapse of concentration) you swerve and hit a Ferrari. You contact your insurance company who pay out for the repairs to the Ferrari.
A year later the Ferrari driver knocks on your door and says "I took my car to a back-street muppet who messed it up, I now want to take it to a second garage and want you to pay £20,000 to get it sorted properly... oh, and I might come back again next year if they don't do it properly either".

Would you be expected to pay the £20,000?

If so, what is the point of having insurance if the third party can make a personal claim against you?

You would refer the matter to your Insurer, that's what you pay them for. The idea of suing the TP directly, is usually to concentrate the mind of the Insurer to sort things out pdq.

Tim

[mikeveal]

Catman is completely correct. He's making the same point that I made, but far more eloquently.

OP has no contract with the garage that did the repair, thus he can not pursue them.

OP could chose to go after the TP ot the TP's insurer (who have a contract to indemnify the TP).
If the OP sued the insurer, the response will be "yawn, yada yada."
Whereas if the OP pursues the TP directly, you can guarantee that within ten minutes of opening the OPs letter before action, the TP will be on the phone to his insurer screaming at them to pay up.

[NGee]

Tje said:

The work should be Covered by a warranty so would most likely get repaired.

I haven't had my car back for more than 2 weeks at a time, as it's been in their bodyshop for repairs, repairs and repairs. I just got it delivered back to me Saturday morning. They inspected it yesterday and agreed their is still issues that need sorting.

Not quite the same as deciding a year later the repairs aren't good enough.

I didn't say it was decided after a year the repairs weren't good enough, I said (implied) it had dragged on for a year (or 8 months in your case).
I know it's not quite the same but a reasonable analogy.

[NGee]

mikeveal said:

Catman is completely correct. He's making the same point that I made, but far more eloquently.

OK, we all seem to be making more or less the same point, it is the 3rd party's insurance's job to sort it out.
But what if they can't or won't or, as in this case, drag it out for 8 months.

I still don't see how the driver can be held responsible or it completely defeats the whole object of having insurance.

[catman]

NGee said:

OK, we all seem to be making more or less the same point, it is the 3rd party's insurance's job to sort it out.
But what if they can't or won't or, as in this case, drag it out for 8 months.

I still don't see how the driver can be held responsible or it completely defeats the whole object of having insurance.

Of course he's responsible, he caused the accident. It's just that he's paid his Insurer to take on the financial risk.

Tim

[havoc]

NGee said:

mikeveal said:

Catman is completely correct. He's making the same point that I made, but far more eloquently.

OK, we all seem to be making more or less the same point, it is the 3rd party's insurance's job to sort it out.
But what if they can't or won't or, as in this case, drag it out for 8 months.

I still don't see how the driver can be held responsible or it completely defeats the whole object of having insurance.

I think you're approaching this from 'common sense' rather than from a legal perspective. And you're also confusing legal responsibility with practical responsibility under an insurance umbrella.

See my response on the previous page - that's the 'pure' legal step-by-step of what's happened. Insurance doesn't absolve YOU of any responsibility for your actions, it only provides for someone else to accept the financial consequences.

So if you hit someone, you let your insurer deal with it (as anyone would) and your insurer makes a mess of fixing their car, YOU are still responsible for it, but you have a contract with your insurer and can compel them to sort it for you, as they have not fulfilled their side of the contract WITH YOU, the person who caused the accident.

[mikeveal]

NGee said:

I still don't see how the driver can be held responsible or it completely defeats the whole object of having insurance.

The third party driver IS responsible to the OP for the damage he caused in the accident.
The third party driver has purchased an insurance policy where the insurer agrees to settle any claims on behalf of the driver. This doesn't change the third party driver's legal obligations, it just means that someone else pays up on the TP driver's behalf.

So the insurer DOES have an obligation to settle a claim on behalf of the TP where the TP is liable. Note carefully that the obligation doesn't involve anyone else. If you sue the TP, then he is entitled to require his insurers to defend or settle (usually the insurer's choice).

If as the aggrieved party you're getting nowhere with a third party's insurer, never forget that they are simply working on behalf of the third party. There is absolutely nothing to stop you going after the TP directly and sometimes its very effective.

Of course usually there is no need to go all legal with courts and guns and stuff and talking to the TP's insurer works perfectly.

Edit: Havoc, Catman and I are all saying exactly the same thing.

Edited by mikeveal on Thursday 23 February 17:20

[NGee]

havoc said:

I think you're approaching this from 'common sense' rather than from a legal perspective.

I think you're probably right!

[Tje]

Just an update and thanks for the help.

Issues the claim against the third party. As soon as that had landed with her the insurance company contacted me.

Vehicle is repaired to a reasonable condition, and managed to negotiate the compensation to five times more than there original offer.

[mikeveal]

Glad it worked out for you.

[anniesdad]

mikeveal said:

The third party driver IS responsible to the OP for the damage he caused in the accident.
The third party driver has purchased an insurance policy where the insurer agrees to settle any claims on behalf of the driver. This doesn't change the third party driver's legal obligations, it just means that someone else pays up on the TP driver's behalf.

So the insurer DOES have an obligation to settle a claim on behalf of the TP where the TP is liable. Note carefully that the obligation doesn't involve anyone else. If you sue the TP, then he is entitled to require his insurers to defend or settle (usually the insurer's choice).

If as the aggrieved party you're getting nowhere with a third party's insurer, never forget that they are simply working on behalf of the third party. There is absolutely nothing to stop you going after the TP directly and sometimes its very effective.

Of course usually there is no need to go all legal with courts and guns and stuff and talking to the TP's insurer works perfectly.

Edit: Havoc, Catman and I are all saying exactly the same thing.

Edited by mikeveal on Thursday 23 February 17:20

This ^

[anniesdad]

Tje said:

Just an update and thanks for the help.

Issues the claim against the third party. As soon as that had landed with her the insurance company contacted me.

Vehicle is repaired to a reasonable condition, and managed to negotiate the compensation to five times more than there original offer.

Well done.

It's infuriating that it sometimes takes this to have your matter resolved.

Lots of posters on this forum seem to suggest that it's always better to let non-contracted insurers have their way at claims made against them, so as to save the cost of AMC services. However, I believe the opposite applies as the mechanism is in place for insurers to pay what is a reasonable amount, but sadly sometimes they can't/won't help themselves and the claimant has contracted terms in place in the event of a bodyshop feck up!

So much work needs yet to be done to resolve the current situation but handing your claim over to the other side, as attractive as it may seem, is not the best for the innocent party.

[Tje]

anniesdad said:

Tje said:

Just an update and thanks for the help.

Issues the claim against the third party. As soon as that had landed with her the insurance company contacted me.

Vehicle is repaired to a reasonable condition, and managed to negotiate the compensation to five times more than there original offer.

Well done.

It's infuriating that it sometimes takes this to have your matter resolved.

Lots of posters on this forum seem to suggest that it's always better to let non-contracted insurers have their way at claims made against them, so as to save the cost of AMC services. However, I believe the opposite applies as the mechanism is in place for insurers to pay what is a reasonable amount, but sadly sometimes they can't/won't help themselves and the claimant has contracted terms in place in the event of a bodyshop feck up!

So much work needs yet to be done to resolve the current situation but handing your claim over to the other side, as attractive as it may seem, is not the best for the innocent party.

I would never do it again. Purely because it's much more difficult to get results, and it still shows up on insurance history.