Farmer claiming for damaged fence
Discussion
Upinflames said:
I don't need any moral advice or thoughts on parenting skills.
A friends son has lost control of his car smashing through a fence and ending up in a field upside down.
He's 18. I know.
Can the farmer insist on claiming for the fence? This is about damage limitation now and the kid's car insurance will go through the roof if he claims. The kid has offered (they're farmers too) to repair the fence but the old boy is adamant he wants to claim.
This exact scenario happened with my FIL. He accepted their offer to restore the fence back to original condition and not go via the insurance. A month later there's no action, every quote has been 'too expensive' and my FIL got fed up and had it fixed properly out of his own pocket. Next time it'll go straight on to an insurance claim, following a report of an accident to the police.A friends son has lost control of his car smashing through a fence and ending up in a field upside down.
He's 18. I know.
Can the farmer insist on claiming for the fence? This is about damage limitation now and the kid's car insurance will go through the roof if he claims. The kid has offered (they're farmers too) to repair the fence but the old boy is adamant he wants to claim.
Whilst it could've been a freak accident, common sense says it's likely that the kid deserves for his insurance to rocket given that he managed to put his car on its roof in a farmer's field.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ken_Code said:
If I were the farmer and the kid hadn’t come straight round the next day to ask how much he wanted, and to pay it, I’d likely just get on to their insurers and see what they said.
An eighteen year-old who’s just trashed a car and is likely about to be struggling with excess and / or the whole cost of replacement isn’t someone I’d want to bother chasing.
Maybe so. But if the kid did have the money, the farmer has no right to insist his insurers paid instead of the kid. An eighteen year-old who’s just trashed a car and is likely about to be struggling with excess and / or the whole cost of replacement isn’t someone I’d want to bother chasing.
If your sons friend is offering to pay himself no doubt they would be fine with that, and it might not affect the NCB, but it would still have been recorded as an accident for underwriting purposes surely? isn't the usual question 'any accidents claims or convictions in the past xxx years'?
It still might be worth reporting to the insurance company and then paying him self though.
But paying and not reporting it is insurance fraud.
740EVTORQUES said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ken_Code said:
If I were the farmer and the kid hadn’t come straight round the next day to ask how much he wanted, and to pay it, I’d likely just get on to their insurers and see what they said.
An eighteen year-old who’s just trashed a car and is likely about to be struggling with excess and / or the whole cost of replacement isn’t someone I’d want to bother chasing.
Maybe so. But if the kid did have the money, the farmer has no right to insist his insurers paid instead of the kid. An eighteen year-old who’s just trashed a car and is likely about to be struggling with excess and / or the whole cost of replacement isn’t someone I’d want to bother chasing.
If your sons friend is offering to pay himself no doubt they would be fine with that, and it might not affect the NCB, but it would still have been recorded as an accident for underwriting purposes surely? isn't the usual question 'any accidents claims or convictions in the past xxx years'?
It still might be worth reporting to the insurance company and then paying him self though.
But paying and not reporting it is insurance fraud.
But, the insurer should not settle the claim without checking with their policyholder. As said, what if he didn't do it? If having been contacted, the lad tells them not to pay because he's going to pay, the insurers have to accept that. He may only be 18, but he's the boss. He pays the premium, he's the customer, he gets to tell his insurers to stand down as he's paying it privately.
You say "it might not affect ncb" if he pays himself. There's no might about it. It won't affect his ncb if the insurers don't have to pay out.
740EVTORQUES said:
The farmer can contact the insurer, who can choose to settle the claim.
If your sons friend is offering to pay himself no doubt they would be fine with that, and it might not affect the NCB, but it would still have been recorded as an accident for underwriting purposes surely? isn't the usual question 'any accidents claims or convictions in the past xxx years'?
It still might be worth reporting to the insurance company and then paying him self though.
But paying and not reporting it is insurance fraud.
I think you are mistaking No Claims Bonus with an increase in premium following reporting an accident. Your NCB will not be affected if no claim is made, however, the premium may go up as a result of the accident. If the insurer asks for information about accidents (most do) it would need to be declared, if they asked about claims it would not.If your sons friend is offering to pay himself no doubt they would be fine with that, and it might not affect the NCB, but it would still have been recorded as an accident for underwriting purposes surely? isn't the usual question 'any accidents claims or convictions in the past xxx years'?
It still might be worth reporting to the insurance company and then paying him self though.
But paying and not reporting it is insurance fraud.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Interesting stuff
So technically, in the common scenario where someone in a supermarket carpark backs into another and says they don't want to go through insurance, they can be seriously annoying by not paying up and then telling their insurer they have settled it themselves?Does the person with a £2k bill for a new bumper and respray then have to pursue the a
hole via the small claims track?VSKeith said:
So technically, in the common scenario where someone in a supermarket carpark backs into another and says they don't want to go through insurance, they can be seriously annoying by not paying up and then telling their insurer they have settled it themselves?
Does the person with a £2k bill for a new bumper and respray then have to pursue the ahole via the small claims track?
There is the option of using your own insurance and letting them pursue the other insurance company. Does the person with a £2k bill for a new bumper and respray then have to pursue the a
hole via the small claims track?Yes, they may not both if it’s a small amount (limiting losses) or end up sharing costs if there isn’t enough evidence of fault, but the latter issue would be the same in small claims anyway.
NCB is not the issue.
The kid's 18, has a year at most?
It's all about his 'history'.
It's an event which he's contracted to report to his insurers.
His insurance contract may also oblige him to put third party claims in the hands of his insurers.
His contract probably forbids him from accepting liability without consulting his insurers?
RTFC Read the (full) contract.
Insurers don't want people 'doing deals' which may go bad leaving them liable.
The car should probably be assessed and should maybe become a CAT vehicle?
The kid's 18, has a year at most?
It's all about his 'history'.
It's an event which he's contracted to report to his insurers.
His insurance contract may also oblige him to put third party claims in the hands of his insurers.
His contract probably forbids him from accepting liability without consulting his insurers?
RTFC Read the (full) contract.
Insurers don't want people 'doing deals' which may go bad leaving them liable.
The car should probably be assessed and should maybe become a CAT vehicle?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And what if you didn't cause the damage? What if there was no accident and the tp is a scammer, or took down the reg no wrong so has the wrong person/insurance co.
No insurer should be settling without recourse to their policyholder. If their policy holder says "Yes, I did cause the damage, and you say the guy I hit wants £3000. That sounds fair, I will contact him now and pay it myself", then that's absolutely fine. The tp cannot say "I don't want your £3000, I want your insurer's £3000".
Nobody is talking about who's bank account the settlement is coming from. And nobody is saying the insurance company will pay out regardless, even if it's fraudulent. What we're saying is, the farmer is entitled to contact his insurer if he doesn't want to deal with the 3rd party directly. A claim will be opened, and it will be dealt with, either by the insurance company paying, or the policyholder instructing the insurance company that he will settle the claim.No insurer should be settling without recourse to their policyholder. If their policy holder says "Yes, I did cause the damage, and you say the guy I hit wants £3000. That sounds fair, I will contact him now and pay it myself", then that's absolutely fine. The tp cannot say "I don't want your £3000, I want your insurer's £3000".
Otherwise, what's to stop every policyholder in the land saying "don't worry chaps, I've got this", handing the 3rd party a fiver and going dark?
Dingu said:
There is the option of using your own insurance and letting them pursue the other insurance company.
Yes, they may not both if it’s a small amount (limiting losses) or end up sharing costs if there isn’t enough evidence of fault, but the latter issue would be the same in small claims anyway.
Of course, so let's say that fault (in the non-insurance sense) is clear - CCTV/dashcam footage of them backing into a stationary vehicle - and the damaged party's insurer goes to the miscreant's insurer, who say "Sorry, he says he's settled/will settle it", the damaged party ultimately ends up with a fault claim even though the aYes, they may not both if it’s a small amount (limiting losses) or end up sharing costs if there isn’t enough evidence of fault, but the latter issue would be the same in small claims anyway.
hole has 3rd party cover and was clearly at fault?Or worse, in a large claim with serious injury, say £1m+, again, fault not in doubt but an innocent pedestrian with no insurance? Ultimately, post eventual court judgement, the insurer will pay, but the a
hole can seriously delay this by digging in their heels initially, saying they'll cover it themselves?jan8p said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And what if you didn't cause the damage? What if there was no accident and the tp is a scammer, or took down the reg no wrong so has the wrong person/insurance co.
No insurer should be settling without recourse to their policyholder. If their policy holder says "Yes, I did cause the damage, and you say the guy I hit wants £3000. That sounds fair, I will contact him now and pay it myself", then that's absolutely fine. The tp cannot say "I don't want your £3000, I want your insurer's £3000".
Nobody is talking about who's bank account the settlement is coming from. And nobody is saying the insurance company will pay out regardless, even if it's fraudulent. What we're saying is, the farmer is entitled to contact his insurer if he doesn't want to deal with the 3rd party directly. A claim will be opened, and it will be dealt with, either by the insurance company paying, or the policyholder instructing the insurance company that he will settle the claim.No insurer should be settling without recourse to their policyholder. If their policy holder says "Yes, I did cause the damage, and you say the guy I hit wants £3000. That sounds fair, I will contact him now and pay it myself", then that's absolutely fine. The tp cannot say "I don't want your £3000, I want your insurer's £3000".
What is being claimed on here is that if you get hit by a tp, you can insist that his insurance co deals with your claim and not the actual driver. That's false. You can't. So long as you're made whole, you don't get to insist who makes you whole.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Of course the farmer can contact his own insurer. He has a contract with them. His own insurer will settle his claim and go after the tp to recover their outlay. And then we're back to the guy that caused the damage. Does he want his insurer to pay the farmer's insurer, or does he want to settle the bill himself. he has that choice.
What is being claimed on here is that if you get hit by a tp, you can insist that his insurance co deals with your claim and not the actual driver. That's false. You can't. So long as you're made whole, you don't get to insist who makes you whole.
Other than your assertions, do you have an independent link or source which confirms your viewpoint?What is being claimed on here is that if you get hit by a tp, you can insist that his insurance co deals with your claim and not the actual driver. That's false. You can't. So long as you're made whole, you don't get to insist who makes you whole.
ChatGPT4 btw says this... "while the driver may prefer to handle the matter privately, the farmer has the legal right to pursue a claim through the driver’s insurance."
https://chat.openai.com/share/df6f62db-812b-4a9a-a...
EddieSteadyGo said:
Other than your assertions, do you have an independent link or source which confirms your viewpoint?
ChatGPT4 btw says this... "while the driver may prefer to handle the matter privately, the farmer has the legal right to pursue a claim through the driver’s insurance."
https://chat.openai.com/share/df6f62db-812b-4a9a-a...
I don't think we should be relying on large language model AI's for facts ChatGPT4 btw says this... "while the driver may prefer to handle the matter privately, the farmer has the legal right to pursue a claim through the driver’s insurance."
https://chat.openai.com/share/df6f62db-812b-4a9a-a...
VSKeith said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Other than your assertions, do you have an independent link or source which confirms your viewpoint?
ChatGPT4 btw says this... "while the driver may prefer to handle the matter privately, the farmer has the legal right to pursue a claim through the driver’s insurance."
https://chat.openai.com/share/df6f62db-812b-4a9a-a...
I don't think we should be relying on large language model AI's for facts ChatGPT4 btw says this... "while the driver may prefer to handle the matter privately, the farmer has the legal right to pursue a claim through the driver’s insurance."
https://chat.openai.com/share/df6f62db-812b-4a9a-a...
EddieSteadyGo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Of course the farmer can contact his own insurer. He has a contract with them. His own insurer will settle his claim and go after the tp to recover their outlay. And then we're back to the guy that caused the damage. Does he want his insurer to pay the farmer's insurer, or does he want to settle the bill himself. he has that choice.
What is being claimed on here is that if you get hit by a tp, you can insist that his insurance co deals with your claim and not the actual driver. That's false. You can't. So long as you're made whole, you don't get to insist who makes you whole.
Other than your assertions, do you have an independent link or source which confirms your viewpoint?What is being claimed on here is that if you get hit by a tp, you can insist that his insurance co deals with your claim and not the actual driver. That's false. You can't. So long as you're made whole, you don't get to insist who makes you whole.
ChatGPT4 btw says this... "while the driver may prefer to handle the matter privately, the farmer has the legal right to pursue a claim through the driver’s insurance."
https://chat.openai.com/share/df6f62db-812b-4a9a-a...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mainly correct.
But, the insurer should not settle the claim without checking with their policyholder. As said, what if he didn't do it? If having been contacted, the lad tells them not to pay because he's going to pay, the insurers have to accept that. He may only be 18, but he's the boss. He pays the premium, he's the customer, he gets to tell his insurers to stand down as he's paying it privately.
You say "it might not affect ncb" if he pays himself. There's no might about it. It won't affect his ncb if the insurers don't have to pay out.
What happens if the lad goes dark with his own insurers and doesn’t reply? Or replies and lies and says it wasn’t him?But, the insurer should not settle the claim without checking with their policyholder. As said, what if he didn't do it? If having been contacted, the lad tells them not to pay because he's going to pay, the insurers have to accept that. He may only be 18, but he's the boss. He pays the premium, he's the customer, he gets to tell his insurers to stand down as he's paying it privately.
You say "it might not affect ncb" if he pays himself. There's no might about it. It won't affect his ncb if the insurers don't have to pay out.
Gary C said:
The same AI that wrote a dissertation and made up all the referenced facts.
Not sure how much experience you have using GPT4? It's not infallible and it does make mistakes. But it can also be an incredible useful tool. Rather like using Google I find.In any event, I gave it the facts and it gave its opinion. Its view also aligns with my own understanding. Once Twig adds his sources, maybe they will be more authoritative.
monkfish1 said:
Op has gone dark. Not seen since first post
My guess is not insured at all....................................
I would guess that it was a cheap car and a large excess so little return from claiming for a write off and the prospect of (entirely deserved) higher premiums in the future.My guess is not insured at all....................................
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff