Car hit whilst parked; insurance problems.
Discussion
kambites said:
Yup. If the insurance company really said that, report them to the ombudsman because they are deliberately trying to mislead someone in order to avoid paying out. The whole point of third-party insurance is that it covers any damage done to other people's property by the car.
a) You cannot (Normally) report an Insurer to the Ombudsman if you're a third partyb) There are circumstances where an Insurer is not liable for damage their customers have done, this could be due to mechanical failure, heart attack / seizure or skidding on ice. However it would depend on the exact circumstances as in some cases they may be liable and in others they may not
dacouch said:
b) There are circumstances where an Insurer is not liable for damage their customers have done, this could be due to mechanical failure, heart attack / seizure or skidding on ice. However it would depend on the exact circumstances as in some cases they may be liable and in others they may not
That can't be correct because surely that's what the 3rd party bit of an insurance policy means though? Otherwise what's the point of it? If that's the case then I'm off to buy a 100 banger and start "skidding on ice" into everyone I dislike.Nonsense from soup-to-nuts - if you Dad received that call, it wasn't from her insurers - more likely from whoever was telling her to make-up lies.
The fact she admitted fault could leave her uninsured for her end of the bill (the terms of your insurance tell you to NEVER admit liability) but even if her car had been thrown into your Dad's by a falling asteroid, it would still her liability (technically, mechanical failure of your car IS your fault - you're responsible for maintaining it after-all).
Your Dad must inform his insurers and leave the job to them - the fact he wasn't IN his car at the time makes it pretty difficult for them to accept any blame
The fact she admitted fault could leave her uninsured for her end of the bill (the terms of your insurance tell you to NEVER admit liability) but even if her car had been thrown into your Dad's by a falling asteroid, it would still her liability (technically, mechanical failure of your car IS your fault - you're responsible for maintaining it after-all).
Your Dad must inform his insurers and leave the job to them - the fact he wasn't IN his car at the time makes it pretty difficult for them to accept any blame
poing said:
dacouch said:
b) There are circumstances where an Insurer is not liable for damage their customers have done, this could be due to mechanical failure, heart attack / seizure or skidding on ice. However it would depend on the exact circumstances as in some cases they may be liable and in others they may not
That can't be correct because surely that's what the 3rd party bit of an insurance policy means though? Otherwise what's the point of it? If that's the case then I'm off to buy a 100 banger and start "skidding on ice" into everyone I dislike.A van parked next to my Dad's barn.
It caught fire and set fire to the barn and contents.
Because it was recently serviced and MOT'd they weren't liable - Dad didn't get a penny.
poing said:
That can't be correct because surely that's what the 3rd party bit of an insurance policy means though? Otherwise what's the point of it? If that's the case then I'm off to buy a 100 banger and start "skidding on ice" into everyone I dislike.
http://www.kennedys-law.com/casereview/rtaskidonblackice/http://www.accident-compensation-people-uk.co.uk/n...
V8RX7 said:
It is true.
A van parked next to my Dad's barn.
It caught fire and set fire to the barn and contents.
Because it was recently serviced and MOT'd they weren't liable - Dad didn't get a penny.
The barn wasn't another car on the public road where you're required to have third-party insurance to cover you against accidents tho - so that's not really like-for-like - that said, I suspect if you'd taken the van owner to court you'd probably have won - assuming you could prove that the fire started in the van??A van parked next to my Dad's barn.
It caught fire and set fire to the barn and contents.
Because it was recently serviced and MOT'd they weren't liable - Dad didn't get a penny.
Whether his insurance is willing to pay and whether he is personally liable are 2 entirely different things.
Edited by 405dogvan on Monday 7th October 23:48
poing said:
Just proves what a bunch of swines the insurance companies are then! How do they get away with this stuff legally?
For the most part, what happens is that they "chance it" like any conman or swindler - they think the fact they're a big insurance company with a massive legal department means people won't content their decisions.Often, mere mention of the words 'insurance ombudsman' will shatter this facade - people should never take their (or anyone else's) insurers word for anything - remember that you often have access to legal advice via recovery policies or bank accounts and/or that most solicitors will give you their 10p 'for free' on any possible legal action you may wish to take.
Just don't accept their bulls
t - basically - don't assume that because they're a "big company" that you cannot argue them down - like a lot of companies, they will take advantage if it saves them time/effort/risk/money.405dogvan said:
The barn wasn't another car on the public road where you're required to have third-party insurance to cover you against accidents tho - so that's not really like-for-like - that said, I suspect if you'd taken the van owner to court you'd probably have won - assuming you could prove that the fire started in the van??
Whether his insurance is willing to pay and whether he is personally liable are 2 entirely different things.
You could recover your losses / sue the owner of an adjacent vehicle which had caught fire and then damaged your property providing you could prove they were negligent. Just because there's a fire and it transfers to another vehicle or property does not mean the owners has been negligent or is liableWhether his insurance is willing to pay and whether he is personally liable are 2 entirely different things.
Edited by 405dogvan on Monday 7th October 23:48
I suspect if they had taken the van owner to court they would have lost unless they could prove the owner was negligent eg the fire was "reasonably" avoidable and / or foreseeable
poing said:
Just proves what a bunch of swines the insurance companies are then! How do they get away with this stuff legally?
It's because of the way the law is written, for you to be able to sue someone successfully you need to prove they were negligent eg the incident could have been avoided by the actions of a reasonable person.405dogvan said:
For the most part, what happens is that they "chance it" like any conman or swindler - they think the fact they're a big insurance company with a massive legal department means people won't content their decisions.
Often, mere mention of the words 'insurance ombudsman' will shatter this facade - people should never take their (or anyone else's) insurers word for anything - remember that you often have access to legal advice via recovery policies or bank accounts and/or that most solicitors will give you their 10p 'for free' on any possible legal action you may wish to take.
Just don't accept their bullst - basically - don't assume that because they're a "big company" that you cannot argue them down - like a lot of companies, they will take advantage if it saves them time/effort/risk/money.
You can only use the Ombudsman against your own Insurer, you cannot use the Ombudsman against a third parties InsurerOften, mere mention of the words 'insurance ombudsman' will shatter this facade - people should never take their (or anyone else's) insurers word for anything - remember that you often have access to legal advice via recovery policies or bank accounts and/or that most solicitors will give you their 10p 'for free' on any possible legal action you may wish to take.
Just don't accept their bulls
t - basically - don't assume that because they're a "big company" that you cannot argue them down - like a lot of companies, they will take advantage if it saves them time/effort/risk/money.405dogvan said:
For the most part, what happens is that they "chance it" like any conman or swindler - they think the fact they're a big insurance company with a massive legal department means people won't content their decisions.
So people then go running off to an ambulance chaser and the insurer ends up paying out more, for which policy holders pick up the tab .....dacouch said:
405dogvan said:
The barn wasn't another car on the public road where you're required to have third-party insurance to cover you against accidents tho - so that's not really like-for-like - that said, I suspect if you'd taken the van owner to court you'd probably have won - assuming you could prove that the fire started in the van??
Whether his insurance is willing to pay and whether he is personally liable are 2 entirely different things.
You could recover your losses / sue the owner of an adjacent vehicle which had caught fire and then damaged your property providing you could prove they were negligent. Whether his insurance is willing to pay and whether he is personally liable are 2 entirely different things.
Just because there's a fire and it transfers to another vehicle or property does not mean the owners has been negligent or is liable
My Dad has taken a few people to court over the years and consulted a solicitor about this. The fact the van had been MOT a few days before pretty much voided any chance of proving negligence.
If the van had failed on dangerous wiring etc then Dad would have a case.
V8RX7 said:
^^^This is the case you HAVE to be able to PROVE it is their fault.
My Dad has taken a few people to court over the years and consulted a solicitor about this. The fact the van had been MOT a few days before pretty much voided any chance of proving negligence.
If the van had failed on dangerous wiring etc then Dad would have a case.
Where in the MOT do they check for dangerous wiring? Also an MOT just covers you the very moment your car is tested. Your car could become unroadworthy the moment you leave the gates.My Dad has taken a few people to court over the years and consulted a solicitor about this. The fact the van had been MOT a few days before pretty much voided any chance of proving negligence.
If the van had failed on dangerous wiring etc then Dad would have a case.
The Curn said:
Her insurance company have phoned him today to say that as it is a mechanical failure on her car they will not take liability and will not pay out. She has now buggered off on holiday for two weeks.
Out of interest, how do you know it was her insurance company on the phone?V8A*ndy said:
V8RX7 said:
^^^This is the case you HAVE to be able to PROVE it is their fault.
My Dad has taken a few people to court over the years and consulted a solicitor about this. The fact the van had been MOT a few days before pretty much voided any chance of proving negligence.
If the van had failed on dangerous wiring etc then Dad would have a case.
Where in the MOT do they check for dangerous wiring? Also an MOT just covers you the very moment your car is tested. Your car could become unroadworthy the moment you leave the gates.My Dad has taken a few people to court over the years and consulted a solicitor about this. The fact the van had been MOT a few days before pretty much voided any chance of proving negligence.
If the van had failed on dangerous wiring etc then Dad would have a case.
How do you propose to do that when the vehicle was recently MOT and serviced ?
V8A*ndy said:
Where in the MOT do they check for dangerous wiring?
Here (admittedly, as with the rest of the moT, its not a thorough & exhaustive check of the wiring though).The Curn said:
Sounds like this is exactly what they are saying. It is down to the insured to maintain their car and if they don't then they won't pay out in the event of a claim.
Perhaps they wouldn't pay for her car to be fixed if she hasn't maintained it to a roadworthy condition, but they are obliged by law to cover any 3rd party claims.OP, this should be treated as a "non fault" accident. Have your father speak to his insurers and ask if his policy offers accident management cover. If it does all well and good, if it does not then ask if they can recommend someone to act on his behalf.
I was involved in an accident recently of a "non fault" type. I informed my insurers of the incident and was contacted by the other drivers insurers who had already contacted my insurers to register the claim, but they then started to talk bks. Quick call to my chosen repairer (in a non fault accident you can choose who repairs your car) and an accident management firm was recommended. I used this company http://www.qdosassist.co.uk/ and they were brilliant. Within 48 hours a brand new Mercedes c250 AMG Sport Estate was on my drive and the cost of hiring this and my full repair was covered by them.
Your father should receive a loan/hire car for the duration of the repair and not have to pay anything, including his excess.
I was involved in an accident recently of a "non fault" type. I informed my insurers of the incident and was contacted by the other drivers insurers who had already contacted my insurers to register the claim, but they then started to talk b
ks. Quick call to my chosen repairer (in a non fault accident you can choose who repairs your car) and an accident management firm was recommended. I used this company http://www.qdosassist.co.uk/ and they were brilliant. Within 48 hours a brand new Mercedes c250 AMG Sport Estate was on my drive and the cost of hiring this and my full repair was covered by them.Your father should receive a loan/hire car for the duration of the repair and not have to pay anything, including his excess.
Lots of bs in this thread. Because they are blaming mechanical failure then they don't have to pay out.
This is true.
This is different to any other kind of accident, but falls under the same as the link to the bloke and the heart attack. Except if its a declared medical condition like epilepsy and a fit at the wheel.
Unattended car rolls into your car because its failed then they get out of paying too unless it was drivers negligence in applying it properly.
Stolen car insurance will only pay out if it hits your car and the thief is arrested and found guilty.
Uninsured driver driving a insured car will only pay out if owner admits they knew they gave the car to a known uninsured driver.
This is true.
This is different to any other kind of accident, but falls under the same as the link to the bloke and the heart attack. Except if its a declared medical condition like epilepsy and a fit at the wheel.
Unattended car rolls into your car because its failed then they get out of paying too unless it was drivers negligence in applying it properly.
Stolen car insurance will only pay out if it hits your car and the thief is arrested and found guilty.
Uninsured driver driving a insured car will only pay out if owner admits they knew they gave the car to a known uninsured driver.
nails1979 said:
Lots of bs in this thread. Because they are blaming mechanical failure then they don't have to pay out.
This is true.
This is different to any other kind of accident, but falls under the same as the link to the bloke and the heart attack. Except if its a declared medical condition like epilepsy and a fit at the wheel.
Unattended car rolls into your car because its failed then they get out of paying too unless it was drivers negligence in applying it properly.
Stolen car insurance will only pay out if it hits your car and the thief is arrested and found guilty.
Uninsured driver driving a insured car will only pay out if owner admits they knew they gave the car to a known uninsured driver.
Not strictly true on the last part.This is true.
This is different to any other kind of accident, but falls under the same as the link to the bloke and the heart attack. Except if its a declared medical condition like epilepsy and a fit at the wheel.
Unattended car rolls into your car because its failed then they get out of paying too unless it was drivers negligence in applying it properly.
Stolen car insurance will only pay out if it hits your car and the thief is arrested and found guilty.
Uninsured driver driving a insured car will only pay out if owner admits they knew they gave the car to a known uninsured driver.
If your car is stolen and the thief is identified then assuming the thief was at fault in the accident then the Insurers of the car are liable for the accident, if the thief is not identified they are not. The RTA says "judgement obtained against the driver" although in practice they just need to be identified.
With regard to an uninsured driver, then assuming they were indentified then the Insurer is liable for third party claims whether the policyholder gave them permission to drive or says they stole the car.
dacouch said:
If your car is stolen and the thief is identified then assuming the thief was at fault in the accident then the Insurers of the car are liable for the accident, if the thief is not identified they are not. The RTA says "judgement obtained against the driver" although in practice they just need to be identified.
With regard to an uninsured driver, then assuming they were indentified then the Insurer is liable for third party claims whether the policyholder gave them permission to drive or says they stole the car.
Sorry... so if MY car is stolen and causes £1M of damage, if the thief is identified, I end up with a claim on MY insurance of £1M (plus the car) With regard to an uninsured driver, then assuming they were indentified then the Insurer is liable for third party claims whether the policyholder gave them permission to drive or says they stole the car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff