Farmer claiming for damaged fence
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
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.
Yes I am aware of how a large language AI model works and how good they are, but also how they can not be trusted.
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".
I suspect the driver wanting to pay rather than going through insurance would make that a particularly inept fraud attempt.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".
EddieSteadyGo said:
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.
I imagine Twig’s source is something like the 30 years or so he spent in the insurance industry…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.
I expect the situation here is:
1. The farmer CANNOT insist on the insurer dealing with it rather than the driver
2. The farmer CAN contact the insurer to ASK them to deal with it
3. The insurer will almost certainly have a contract clause allowing them to CHOSE to deal with it (regardless of the drivers opinion)
In theory an insurer would be perfectly within their rights to tell the farmer 'our client says he is dealing with it directly'. But I suspect doing so risks either much larger court costs (and unhappy, therefore unfavourable judges due to wasted court time) if the driver doesn't deal with it or being on the hook for what the driver agrees to...
1. The farmer CANNOT insist on the insurer dealing with it rather than the driver
2. The farmer CAN contact the insurer to ASK them to deal with it
3. The insurer will almost certainly have a contract clause allowing them to CHOSE to deal with it (regardless of the drivers opinion)
In theory an insurer would be perfectly within their rights to tell the farmer 'our client says he is dealing with it directly'. But I suspect doing so risks either much larger court costs (and unhappy, therefore unfavourable judges due to wasted court time) if the driver doesn't deal with it or being on the hook for what the driver agrees to...
Collectingbrass said:
jan8p said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The farmer can insist his fence is repaired to a decent standard but he can't demand driver's insurance pays for it. The insurance is there to pick up the bills for damage caused by their policyholder/driver, but only if their policyholder/driver asks them to. The policyholder/driver is quite entitled to pay for the damage himself.
If the farmer approaches the insurance company, they will settle the claim with him (if it's valid and proven). They won't ask the policyholder's permission first, they have a liability to the farmer.Oceanrower said:
I imagine Twig’s source is something like the 30 years or so he spent in the insurance industry…
Oh right, in that case, we can expect some good documentary evidence with links etc. I'm pretty sure this is a well trodden path. There are bound to be lots of examples with the Financial Ombudsman where a third party wanted to claim on a driver's insurance, the driver wanted to settle the claim themselves, the third party refused and instead tried to claim on the driver's insurance. In which case, I would assume at least a proportion of those would have gone to the ombudsman to intervene and make a ruling?
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.
Just had a look at the Financial Ombudsman decision database. This situation is quite similar....
Person A bumps their car into person's B car while parking. Person A accepts responsibility. Person A offers to pay for person B's car to be repaired privately, avoiding the need to claim on their insurance. Person B accepts this offer. Person A then notifies their insurer, as they are required to do, and tells their insurer they will be settling the cost of the repair privately.
Contact is made between the insurer and person B. At some point, Person B changes their mind and decides they do want to claim on person A's insurance. The insurer then pays for person B's car to be fixed. Person A files a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman saying they shouldn't have got involved because the repair was to be handling privately.
In this case, the ombudsman agreed that person B has a right to change their mind and that the insurer was right to then pay for their car to be repaired, even though that was not what the person A wanted.
I think that is a pretty close example to our farmer and his fence.
Having a look at these ombudsman decisions, there are some fairly clear principles which apply to the farmer's fence. The first is that the Ombudsman places an obligation on the insurer to act fairly and reasonably in deciding whether to settle or pursue third party claims. The insurer also has full discretion to take over and settle any claim made by a third party, regardless of what the insured party wants to happen.
So I think it is clear cut... the farmer gets to choose, whether to accept the repair from the driver who damaged the fence, or to make a claim on the driver's insurance. The insurer has obligations to the Ombudsman, to process claims by third party's fairly, so where their insured party has admitted liability, they will look to settle.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
Person A bumps their car into person's B car while parking. Person A accepts responsibility. Person A offers to pay for person B's car to be repaired privately, avoiding the need to claim on their insurance. Person B accepts this offer. Person A then notifies their insurer, as they are required to do, and tells their insurer they will be settling the cost of the repair privately.
Contact is made between the insurer and person B. At some point, Person B changes their mind and decides they do want to claim on person A's insurance. The insurer then pays for person B's car to be fixed. Person A files a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman saying they shouldn't have got involved because the repair was to be handling privately.
In this case, the ombudsman agreed that person B has a right to change their mind and that the insurer was right to then pay for their car to be repaired, even though that was not what the person A wanted.
I think that is a pretty close example to our farmer and his fence.
Having a look at these ombudsman decisions, there are some fairly clear principles which apply to the farmer's fence. The first is that the Ombudsman places an obligation on the insurer to act fairly and reasonably in deciding whether to settle or pursue third party claims. The insurer also has full discretion to take over and settle any claim made by a third party, regardless of what the insured party wants to happen.
So I think it is clear cut... the farmer gets to choose, whether to accept the repair from the driver who damaged the fence, or to make a claim on the driver's insurance. The insurer has obligations to the Ombudsman, to process claims by third party's fairly, so where their insured party has admitted liability, they will look to settle.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
EddieSteadyGo said:
Just had a look at the Financial Ombudsman decision database. This situation is quite similar....
Person A bumps their car into person's B car while parking. Person A accepts responsibility. Person A offers to pay for person B's car to be repaired privately, avoiding the need to claim on their insurance. Person B accepts this offer. Person A then notifies their insurer, as they are required to do, and tells their insurer they will be settling the cost of the repair privately.
Contact is made between the insurer and person B. At some point, Person B changes their mind and decides they do want to claim on person A's insurance. The insurer then pays for person B's car to be fixed. Person A files a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman saying they shouldn't have got involved because the repair was to be handling privately.
In this case, the ombudsman agreed that person B has a right to change their mind and that the insurer was right to then pay for their car to be repaired, even though that was not what the person A wanted.
I think that is a pretty close example to our farmer and his fence.
Having a look at these ombudsman decisions, there are some fairly clear principles which apply to the farmer's fence. The first is that the Ombudsman places an obligation on the insurer to act fairly and reasonably in deciding whether to settle or pursue third party claims. The insurer also has full discretion to take over and settle any claim made by a third party, regardless of what the insured party wants to happen.
So I think it is clear cut... the farmer gets to choose, whether to accept the repair from the driver who damaged the fence, or to make a claim on the driver's insurance. The insurer has obligations to the Ombudsman, to process claims by third party's fairly, so where their insured party has admitted liability, they will look to settle.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
The insurer has rights of subrogation. That's something we as policyholders sign over to them when we take out the policy. So our insurers have the right to act on our behalf. Sometimes in a way we might not agree with. But that's a bit different to what some people are saying here. They are saying the farmer has the right to insist that the lad's insurers deal with it rather than the lad himself. He absolutely does not. If the lad's insurer are happy for him to settle privately (and most will be, he is the policyholder and keeping the policyholder happy whilst not paying out any money suits them) , and if the lad is prepared to settle the claim properly and pay promptly and in full, there's not a damn thing the farmer can do about it. Person A bumps their car into person's B car while parking. Person A accepts responsibility. Person A offers to pay for person B's car to be repaired privately, avoiding the need to claim on their insurance. Person B accepts this offer. Person A then notifies their insurer, as they are required to do, and tells their insurer they will be settling the cost of the repair privately.
Contact is made between the insurer and person B. At some point, Person B changes their mind and decides they do want to claim on person A's insurance. The insurer then pays for person B's car to be fixed. Person A files a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman saying they shouldn't have got involved because the repair was to be handling privately.
In this case, the ombudsman agreed that person B has a right to change their mind and that the insurer was right to then pay for their car to be repaired, even though that was not what the person A wanted.
I think that is a pretty close example to our farmer and his fence.
Having a look at these ombudsman decisions, there are some fairly clear principles which apply to the farmer's fence. The first is that the Ombudsman places an obligation on the insurer to act fairly and reasonably in deciding whether to settle or pursue third party claims. The insurer also has full discretion to take over and settle any claim made by a third party, regardless of what the insured party wants to happen.
So I think it is clear cut... the farmer gets to choose, whether to accept the repair from the driver who damaged the fence, or to make a claim on the driver's insurance. The insurer has obligations to the Ombudsman, to process claims by third party's fairly, so where their insured party has admitted liability, they will look to settle.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The insurer has rights of subrogation. That's something we as policyholders sign over to them when we take out the policy. So our insurers have the right to act on our behalf. Sometimes in a way we might not agree with. But that's a bit different to what some people are saying here. They are saying the farmer has the right to insist that the lad's insurers deal with it rather than the lad himself. He absolutely does not. If the lad's insurer are happy for him to settle privately (and most will be, he is the policyholder and keeping the policyholder happy whilst not paying out any money suits them) , and if the lad is prepared to settle the claim properly and pay promptly and in full, there's not a damn thing the farmer can do about it.
This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
That ignores the specific ombudsman decision I referenced - specifically, the Ombudsman places a number of burdens on the insurer which is in addition to any contractual obligations. In the specific decision, they ruled the third party had a right to change their mind, even though they had agreed to allow the claim to be settled privately. And the third party could look to the insurance company to process the claim. And because the insured party had admitted fault, and it was a valid claim, there would be an expectation from the Ombudsman to settle such a claim (as part of dealing with third party claims 'fairly').This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
I wonder what the reaction would be if someone put up a new thread.
I was driving down my shared driveway and accidental clipped and broke one of my neighbours flower pots, that was empty. I looked online and saw an identical one for £20. So I knocked on his door apologising and offering him the £20, or I said if he preferred, I would order the replacement and give it to him. However, he is not happy with this, and is demanding he claim on my insurance for the £20, saying he doesn't want to deal with me, only my insurer.
Legally, this is an identical situation. Person A has caused damage to person B's property, and person B is entitled to be adequately compensated. Would anyone seriously be saying "your neighbour has every right to go thru your insurance, he gets to choose". Of course not, they'd be saying "tell the awkward old duffer to bugger off, you caused damage, you're prepared to put it right, end of story.
I was driving down my shared driveway and accidental clipped and broke one of my neighbours flower pots, that was empty. I looked online and saw an identical one for £20. So I knocked on his door apologising and offering him the £20, or I said if he preferred, I would order the replacement and give it to him. However, he is not happy with this, and is demanding he claim on my insurance for the £20, saying he doesn't want to deal with me, only my insurer.
Legally, this is an identical situation. Person A has caused damage to person B's property, and person B is entitled to be adequately compensated. Would anyone seriously be saying "your neighbour has every right to go thru your insurance, he gets to choose". Of course not, they'd be saying "tell the awkward old duffer to bugger off, you caused damage, you're prepared to put it right, end of story.
EddieSteadyGo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The insurer has rights of subrogation. That's something we as policyholders sign over to them when we take out the policy. So our insurers have the right to act on our behalf. Sometimes in a way we might not agree with. But that's a bit different to what some people are saying here. They are saying the farmer has the right to insist that the lad's insurers deal with it rather than the lad himself. He absolutely does not. If the lad's insurer are happy for him to settle privately (and most will be, he is the policyholder and keeping the policyholder happy whilst not paying out any money suits them) , and if the lad is prepared to settle the claim properly and pay promptly and in full, there's not a damn thing the farmer can do about it.
This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
That ignores the specific ombudsman decision I referenced - specifically, the Ombudsman places a number of burdens on the insurer which is in addition to any contractual obligations. In the specific decision, they ruled the third party had a right to change their mind, even though they had agreed to allow the claim to be settled privately. And the third party could look to the insurance company to process the claim. And because the insured party had admitted fault, and it was a valid claim, there would be an expectation from the Ombudsman to settle such a claim (as part of dealing with third party claims 'fairly').This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I wonder what the reaction would be if someone put up a new thread.
I was driving down my shared driveway and accidental clipped and broke one of my neighbours flower pots, that was empty. I looked online and saw an identical one for £20. So I knocked on his door apologising and offering him the £20, or I said if he preferred, I would order the replacement and give it to him. However, he is not happy with this, and is demanding he claim on my insurance for the £20, saying he doesn't want to deal with me, only my insurer.
Legally, this is an identical situation. Person A has caused damage to person B's property, and person B is entitled to be adequately compensated. Would anyone seriously be saying "your neighbour has every right to go thru your insurance, he gets to choose". Of course not, they'd be saying "tell the awkward old duffer to bugger off, you caused damage, you're prepared to put it right, end of story.
We don't need your theoretical examples to see what should happen. There are literally dozens of actual cases in the Ombudsmen database where they clearly set-out the obligations for how an insurer is required to process third party claims, including many where the policyholder has admitted fault. From the examples I have looked at, if the claim is valid, and the policyholder admitted fault (and even quite a few when they didn't) the insurer is expected by the Ombudsmen to pay the third party claim, regardless of what the policyholder thinks. That doesn't mean the third party is required to use the insurance company - they are able to settle the claim privately if they chose to.I was driving down my shared driveway and accidental clipped and broke one of my neighbours flower pots, that was empty. I looked online and saw an identical one for £20. So I knocked on his door apologising and offering him the £20, or I said if he preferred, I would order the replacement and give it to him. However, he is not happy with this, and is demanding he claim on my insurance for the £20, saying he doesn't want to deal with me, only my insurer.
Legally, this is an identical situation. Person A has caused damage to person B's property, and person B is entitled to be adequately compensated. Would anyone seriously be saying "your neighbour has every right to go thru your insurance, he gets to choose". Of course not, they'd be saying "tell the awkward old duffer to bugger off, you caused damage, you're prepared to put it right, end of story.
Some of our agriculture stuff is insured new for old, if we claim on it we get brand new replacement.
If farmer had that - I would imagine if something happened folk would want to use insurance to replace new for old, & leave it for them to figure out how much was reasonable to recover from the responsible party (I’d agree they shouldn’t be forced to pay for any betterment we get)
This must happen elsewhere, I think in our car policies we get new price for 1st two years if written off but I would imagine a third party would only be liable for market value?
Also Farmer isn’t being unreasonable by creating a situation where the guys insurance is being told something they should be told about anyway
If farmer had that - I would imagine if something happened folk would want to use insurance to replace new for old, & leave it for them to figure out how much was reasonable to recover from the responsible party (I’d agree they shouldn’t be forced to pay for any betterment we get)
This must happen elsewhere, I think in our car policies we get new price for 1st two years if written off but I would imagine a third party would only be liable for market value?
Also Farmer isn’t being unreasonable by creating a situation where the guys insurance is being told something they should be told about anyway
EddieSteadyGo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The insurer has rights of subrogation. That's something we as policyholders sign over to them when we take out the policy. So our insurers have the right to act on our behalf. Sometimes in a way we might not agree with. But that's a bit different to what some people are saying here. They are saying the farmer has the right to insist that the lad's insurers deal with it rather than the lad himself. He absolutely does not. If the lad's insurer are happy for him to settle privately (and most will be, he is the policyholder and keeping the policyholder happy whilst not paying out any money suits them) , and if the lad is prepared to settle the claim properly and pay promptly and in full, there's not a damn thing the farmer can do about it.
This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
That ignores the specific ombudsman decision I referenced - specifically, the Ombudsman places a number of burdens on the insurer which is in addition to any contractual obligations. In the specific decision, they ruled the third party had a right to change their mind, even though they had agreed to allow the claim to be settled privately. And the third party could look to the insurance company to process the claim. And because the insured party had admitted fault, and it was a valid claim, there would be an expectation from the Ombudsman to settle such a claim (as part of dealing with third party claims 'fairly').This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
"It explained how it offers its service direct to the third party in circumstances like this. It does this in order to keep costs down....Our investigator looked into things....She explained it was entitled to contact the third party directly and as they wanted to pursue a claim it acted reasonably....The policy explains that UKI has the right to take over the settlement of any claim..."
UKI's wording in their policies is: "We’re entitled to...Take over and carry out the negotiation, defence or settlement of any claim in your name...".
Which is exactly what happened.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Gary C, if I find out the name of your insurance co, go to them and ask them to repair my car that you hit (even though I've never met you or had an accident with you), would you expect your insurer to do that, willy nilly? Of course not. They'd come to you and say "Twig says you hit his car on 2nd April, and wants £3K for repair. What say you?" At which point you can say a) Twig's a liar. b) It's true, it's all my fault, please pay him . c) It's true, but don't worry, Ill pay him out of my own pocket.
If you did hit me, I need to be compensated. But I don't get to choose who picks up the bill. Just so long as it's not me.
Or they could ask to see the car they have insured for a no BS assessment.If you did hit me, I need to be compensated. But I don't get to choose who picks up the bill. Just so long as it's not me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff