Farmer claiming for damaged fence

[Solocle]

Forester1965 said:

If there's no injury there's no duty to provide insurance details to the 3rd party. I'm not sure the farmer has any right to insist on who pays for the damage, or the driver's insurer to insist they must pay rather than their insured?

Injury or damage.

RTA 1988 § 170

[Forester1965]

Solocle said:

Forester1965 said:

If there's no injury there's no duty to provide insurance details to the 3rd party. I'm not sure the farmer has any right to insist on who pays for the damage, or the driver's insurer to insist they must pay rather than their insured?

Injury or damage.

RTA 1988 § 170

The duty to provide insurance details only falls under (1)(a).

[vonhosen]

Simplest thing for the farmer is claim on his own insurance so it's completed to his satisfaction then let his insurer get the money back from the lad or the lad's insurance company.

That way the farmer gets it completed to his satisfaction by somebody he & his insurer agree on.
His insurer will probably contact the lad's insurer.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Did this boy inform the police of the RTC/damage?

[Monkeylegend]

I'm on the fence on this one.

Happened to a customer of mine and the young lad who drove through his fence ended up paying through his insurance.

[vonhosen]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Did this boy inform the police of the RTC/damage?

If he stopped & gave his name/address, the vehicle owner's name/address & VRM, he doesn't have to.

[MustangGT]

FMOB 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.

I have never known a policy holder to be able to force or prevent their insurer paying out a claim.

I read Twig's comment as meaning the insurance company does not have to be involved if the insured party decides to pay the cost of the full claim himself.

The insurance is to cover your liability, you can choose to use it, or not.

[OutInTheShed]

There is another insurance issue.

The farmer, as an employer, won't want uninsured fkwits working on his property.

[Tom8]

I farm. I keep a stock of fencing at all times. So demanding payment is exactly what I would do and then fix it myself.

[ralphrj]

Monkeylegend said:

I'm on the fence on this one.

Dangerous with these low flying cars around.

[FMOB]

MustangGT said:

FMOB 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.

I have never known a policy holder to be able to force or prevent their insurer paying out a claim.

I read Twig's comment as meaning the insurance company does not have to be involved if the insured party decides to pay the cost of the full claim himself.

The insurance is to cover your liability, you can choose to use it, or not.

Ah, so if the policy holder decides not to use their insurer then that can happen but the injured party can force the involvement of the insurance company by making a 3rd party claim, doubt the policy holder has any control over the insurance meeting a claim when it comes directly from an injured 3rd party.

[Gary C]

But surely none of this makes any difference

The Farmer can still go straight to the insurance company and make a claim no matter what the driver wishes him to do.

Their are procedures for the Farmer to obtain his insurance details regardless of the driver not giving him the details and the driver cant prevent this, all he needs is the registration.

[Countdown]

Tom8 said:

I farm. I keep a stock of fencing at all times. So demanding payment is exactly what I would do and then fix it myself.

How do you work out what the cost should be and who decides if that's a fair cost or not?

[Ian Geary]

Forester1965 said:

Solocle said:

Forester1965 said:

If there's no injury there's no duty to provide insurance details to the 3rd party. I'm not sure the farmer has any right to insist on who pays for the damage, or the driver's insurer to insist they must pay rather than their insured?

Injury or damage.

RTA 1988 § 170

The duty to provide insurance details only falls under (1)(a).

Eh?

1(a) concerns injury
1(b) concerns damage

The last word of 1(a) is "or" which has a straight forward meaning.

It is obvious therefore that either injury or damage cause section 2 to apply.

This is simple stuff...note to self: never take legal advice from the internet.



On topic - the lad /his parents should have no expectation to dictate what the "injured" party does.

[Gary C]

Ian Geary said:

Eh?

1(a) concerns injury
1(b) concerns damage

The last word of 1(a) is "or" which has a straight forward meaning.

It is obvious therefore that either injury or damage cause section 2 to apply.

This is simple stuff...note to self: never take legal advice from the internet.

On topic - the lad /his parents should have no expectation to dictate what the "injured" party does.

Read 5

(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of a motor vehicle does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.

so name and address has to be given for 1(a) and 1(b), but only 1(a) for the insurance details


But again surely none of this makes any difference

The Farmer can still go straight to the insurance company and make a claim no matter what the driver wishes him to do.

Their are procedures for the Farmer to obtain his insurance details regardless of the driver not giving him the details and the driver cant prevent this, all he needs is the registration.

Edited by Gary C on Thursday 11th April 09:57

[ralphrj]

Gary C said:

But surely none of this makes any difference

The Farmer can still go straight to the insurance company and make a claim no matter what the driver wishes him to do.

Their are procedures for the Farmer to obtain his insurance details regardless of the driver not giving him the details and the driver cant prevent this, all he needs is the registration.

Yes and No.

Assuming that the farmer has the registration number then he could request insurance details from the MIB and if they provide them then he could contact the insurer. However, the insurer will have no record of the accident as the OP's son has not notified them. The insurer won't settle a claim like that immediately but will instead contact the OP's son asking him to explain what has happened. What happens after that will depend on the response from the OP's son.

1. If he admits the accident then the insurer will progress the farmers claim.
2. If he denies the accident then the insurer will deny the claim unless the farmer produces some evidence that contradicts the denial.
3. If he fails to respond then the insurer is likely to repeat their enquiries and may eventually draw their own conclusions about what has happened.

[donkmeister]

Something I've wondered as I've seen upside down cars in fields alongside surprisingly straight roads is... Do they have to do anything about oil/coolant/fuel contamination before the soil is any good for farming?

I realise a few litres on a little patch of 100s of acres is small, but is it a thing?

[OutInTheShed]

Tom8 said:

I farm. I keep a stock of fencing at all times. So demanding payment is exactly what I would do and then fix it myself.

I guess if you had livestock in the field, you'd have fixed it by now, to your own standards, because the responsibility for doing it properly and not being negligent to your livestock is yours?

[Gary C]

ralphrj said:

Yes and No.

Assuming that the farmer has the registration number then he could request insurance details from the MIB and if they provide them then he could contact the insurer. However, the insurer will have no record of the accident as the OP's son has not notified them. The insurer won't settle a claim like that immediately but will instead contact the OP's son asking him to explain what has happened. What happens after that will depend on the response from the OP's son.

1. If he admits the accident then the insurer will progress the farmers claim.
2. If he denies the accident then the insurer will deny the claim unless the farmer produces some evidence that contradicts the denial.
3. If he fails to respond then the insurer is likely to repeat their enquiries and may eventually draw their own conclusions about what has happened.

thats a different argument

If he denies the accident then thats fraud and a whole new game.

The Farmer can claim directly no matter

Edited by Gary C on Thursday 11th April 10:32

[vonhosen]

Ian Geary said:

Forester1965 said:

Solocle said:

Forester1965 said:

If there's no injury there's no duty to provide insurance details to the 3rd party. I'm not sure the farmer has any right to insist on who pays for the damage, or the driver's insurer to insist they must pay rather than their insured?

Injury or damage.

RTA 1988 § 170

The duty to provide insurance details only falls under (1)(a).

Eh?

1(a) concerns injury
1(b) concerns damage

The last word of 1(a) is "or" which has a straight forward meaning.

It is obvious therefore that either injury or damage cause section 2 to apply.

This is simple stuff...note to self: never take legal advice from the internet.



On topic - the lad /his parents should have no expectation to dictate what the "injured" party does.

The additional requirement to produce insurance (in addition to the requirements under section 2 to stop & give name/address/VRM) comes under section 5 & does not apply to 1(b).