Previous insurer taking 3rd party to court - should I care?
Discussion
Don't know if this has already been discussed or not - last year I was involved in a collision on a gyratory. It was clearly the other guys fault, but my insurer (Admiral) pursued 50/50 liability, claiming legal precedent (regarding roundabout laws being argued, even when they don't apply on gyratories). Whatever, I could afford the excess, just want to get it settled quickly. My car was fixed by Admiral, I paid the excess. Done.
Cut to this year, and due to the lacklustre defence above, I decided to change insurers. Admiral have since got in contact claiming the 3rd Party Insurer is refusing contact, and they want to pursue through the courts, but can only do so if I say I'm happy to appear in court.
Question is, should I bother? My car is fixed. I paid the excess. I'm no longer with Admiral. My current insurer doesn't really care if it was split liability or not. If Admiral don't recoup the cost, it will get absorbed into general premium inflation (reflected across the industry due to market pricing).
However, if I let them pursue legal action, the cost of the claim will rise, probably by a multiple, and the increased claim now enforced on the 3rd party will be absorbed into general premium inflation (reflected across the industry due to market pricing). Oh, and I have to waste more of my time.
...whadya think, PistonBrain?
Cut to this year, and due to the lacklustre defence above, I decided to change insurers. Admiral have since got in contact claiming the 3rd Party Insurer is refusing contact, and they want to pursue through the courts, but can only do so if I say I'm happy to appear in court.
Question is, should I bother? My car is fixed. I paid the excess. I'm no longer with Admiral. My current insurer doesn't really care if it was split liability or not. If Admiral don't recoup the cost, it will get absorbed into general premium inflation (reflected across the industry due to market pricing).
However, if I let them pursue legal action, the cost of the claim will rise, probably by a multiple, and the increased claim now enforced on the 3rd party will be absorbed into general premium inflation (reflected across the industry due to market pricing). Oh, and I have to waste more of my time.
...whadya think, PistonBrain?
Oldandslow said:
My question would be, why are Admiral taking the 3rd party insurer to court? If they insisted it was settled 50/50 they've got no claim off the other insurer. Who's taking who to court?
Of course they have a claim. If the OP's damage was more than the tp damage, Admiral are owed half of that. (eg, OP's damage £2K, tp damage £1K, Admiral are owed £500.). It's 50/50, not knock for knock. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Oldandslow said:
My question would be, why are Admiral taking the 3rd party insurer to court? If they insisted it was settled 50/50 they've got no claim off the other insurer. Who's taking who to court?
Of course they have a claim. If the OP's damage was more than the tp damage, Admiral are owed half of that. (eg, OP's damage £2K, tp damage £1K, Admiral are owed £500.). It's 50/50, not knock for knock. TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the claim is settled 50/50 the tp insurer will have to refund half your excess anyway.
Really?Surely the excess is the first £xxx of costs associated with repairing your damage.
Even if they go 50/50 and the cost for them to have repaired the car is £excess +1 they'll keep the whole thing, just minimise their own outgoings.
kiethton said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the claim is settled 50/50 the tp insurer will have to refund half your excess anyway.
Really?Surely the excess is the first £xxx of costs associated with repairing your damage.
Even if they go 50/50 and the cost for them to have repaired the car is £excess +1 they'll keep the whole thing, just minimise their own outgoings.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
kiethton said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the claim is settled 50/50 the tp insurer will have to refund half your excess anyway.
Really?Surely the excess is the first £xxx of costs associated with repairing your damage.
Even if they go 50/50 and the cost for them to have repaired the car is £excess +1 they'll keep the whole thing, just minimise their own outgoings.
I'd tell them not to bother.
I had the misfortune of being insured by them when my old car was written off. They were the most incompetent and downright useless company I have ever dealt with. Their preferred partner Albany Assistance were also woeful.
I vowed never to do business with them again, even if they were cheaper than other insurers.
I had the misfortune of being insured by them when my old car was written off. They were the most incompetent and downright useless company I have ever dealt with. Their preferred partner Albany Assistance were also woeful.
I vowed never to do business with them again, even if they were cheaper than other insurers.
OP,
Sounds like Admiral have an obstinate third party, presumably one that is not claiming for their own loss(es), possibly because the driver feels they are at fault for the incident. Admiral may therefore believe they have a chance to recover at 100%, but may look to commence litigation so as to provide leverage with a view to negotiating a split liability. Certainly if the opposition insurers believe they don't have a credible witness.
Legal costs will be minimal as this will more than likely be a claim dealt with on the small claims track (£85.00 Solicitor costs from memory + court issue fees). So not much of a concern/consideration.
What do you get out of it? Well some or all of your excess back and your accident claim record being put back into your favour if you secure 100% liability, and why shouldn't you? You say it was clearly not your fault, so the Judge (if it gets that far) will find in your favour...right?
I'd give Admiral my instructions to proceed if I were you, nothing to lose.
Sounds like Admiral have an obstinate third party, presumably one that is not claiming for their own loss(es), possibly because the driver feels they are at fault for the incident. Admiral may therefore believe they have a chance to recover at 100%, but may look to commence litigation so as to provide leverage with a view to negotiating a split liability. Certainly if the opposition insurers believe they don't have a credible witness.
Legal costs will be minimal as this will more than likely be a claim dealt with on the small claims track (£85.00 Solicitor costs from memory + court issue fees). So not much of a concern/consideration.
What do you get out of it? Well some or all of your excess back and your accident claim record being put back into your favour if you secure 100% liability, and why shouldn't you? You say it was clearly not your fault, so the Judge (if it gets that far) will find in your favour...right?
I'd give Admiral my instructions to proceed if I were you, nothing to lose.
anniesdad said:
OP,
Sounds like Admiral have an obstinate third party, presumably one that is not claiming for their own loss(es), possibly because the driver feels they are at fault for the incident. Admiral may therefore believe they have a chance to recover at 100%, but may look to commence litigation so as to provide leverage with a view to negotiating a split liability. Certainly if the opposition insurers believe they don't have a credible witness.
Legal costs will be minimal as this will more than likely be a claim dealt with on the small claims track (£85.00 Solicitor costs from memory + court issue fees). So not much of a concern/consideration.
What do you get out of it? Well some or all of your excess back and your accident claim record being put back into your favour if you secure 100% liability, and why shouldn't you? You say it was clearly not your fault, so the Judge (if it gets that far) will find in your favour...right?
I'd give Admiral my instructions to proceed if I were you, nothing to lose.
Yeah, I just asked them to do so on the basis of it being 100% liability on the 3rd party, and me getting my excess back.Sounds like Admiral have an obstinate third party, presumably one that is not claiming for their own loss(es), possibly because the driver feels they are at fault for the incident. Admiral may therefore believe they have a chance to recover at 100%, but may look to commence litigation so as to provide leverage with a view to negotiating a split liability. Certainly if the opposition insurers believe they don't have a credible witness.
Legal costs will be minimal as this will more than likely be a claim dealt with on the small claims track (£85.00 Solicitor costs from memory + court issue fees). So not much of a concern/consideration.
What do you get out of it? Well some or all of your excess back and your accident claim record being put back into your favour if you secure 100% liability, and why shouldn't you? You say it was clearly not your fault, so the Judge (if it gets that far) will find in your favour...right?
I'd give Admiral my instructions to proceed if I were you, nothing to lose.
Thanks for the unanimous and unwavering support you guys!
OP, Admiral are in it for themselves, not you. They will want a signed statement from you and you'll be required to attend at any court hearings, no matter whereabouts in the country they'll be heard. There may be cancelled hearings to.
I've had all this crap happen to me and insisted on a £250 payment to cover my time off work and expenses before I provided the statement. They gave me the cheque at the start of the court hearing :-)
I've had all this crap happen to me and insisted on a £250 payment to cover my time off work and expenses before I provided the statement. They gave me the cheque at the start of the court hearing :-)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff