Car hit whilst parked; insurance problems.

Car hit whilst parked; insurance problems.

Author
Discussion

dacouch

1,172 posts

130 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
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)
That's how the Road Traffic Act works, your car Insurer may try and recover their outlay from the thieve but the chances of recovering any money are very remote.

This is what the RTA says.

"(2)Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either—
(a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or
(b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

"b" would be the relevant part in the your example, the RTA says "Judgment is obtained" in real life it means "Identified". If the thieve or uninsured friend who had borrowed your car was identified the MIB would make the insurer of the car deal with the claim under this section of the RTA

Hol

8,419 posts

201 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
STOP!!!,

CHILL!!!

REWIND, back to Mondays point that they won't pay out because it is mechanical failure.


Does that not mean that the best advice for the OP is to get his insurance to write to the woman ask her to pay for the damage as her claim has made her uninsured.

I'm sure the threat of a nice CCJ will do wonders for her memory.

onesickpuppy

2,648 posts

158 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
No, the best advice for the OP is to tell his insurance that she hit his car and give them her details. Full stop.

Grey Ghost

4,583 posts

221 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
Hol said:
REWIND, back to Mondays point that they won't pay out because it is mechanical failure.
I don't get this at all as I thought that was what the 3rd party part of your policy was for; i.e. someone you hit was covered even if your insurer wriggles out of paying for your part of the claim. If insurers could get away with saying a mechanical failure caused the accident surely there would be hundreds if not thousands of these claim rejections every year ?

As I said before this should be treated as a "non fault accident" and an accident management company will do this for the OP.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,402 posts

151 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
Crikey, some real rubbish posted on this thread.

The third party aspect of your insurance is to cover you for damage you do or injury you cause to other people, that you are legally liable for. If you are not legally liable, then neither you or your insurer needs to pay.

In most cases, in order to be legally liable, you need to have been negligent. If you have a heart attack at the wheel and crash into someone else, then unless you haven't taken your meds or were driving against docs ordered, you haven't been negligent so you don't owe the person you hit a dime. Neither does your insurer.

In the case of a blow out, it's a bit more complicated. Loads of people have blow outs but not everyone crashes into a third party. On a slow city centre road where a car is doing less than 30mph, you could argue that even allowing for the supposed punture, it was still negligence to hit a third party. A compitant driver should have been able to control their car. But you are on thin ice and her insurer has every right to deny liability as an opening stance.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,402 posts

151 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
405dogvan said:
Whether his insurance is willing to pay and whether he is personally liable are 2 entirely different things.
Utter rubbish. In fact, the total opposite of the truth.

If the person is legally liable, their insurers will pay the tp. If they are not legally liable, the insurance company won't pay. It really is that simple.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,402 posts

151 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
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 nothing to do with insurers, it's the law of the land.

If the boot was on the other foot, and you had a claim for which the law of the land said you were not legally liable for, but your insurer went ahead and paid the tp anyway because it wasn't their fault either, and you lost your bonus, you'd be screaming blue murder, and calling the insurers swines.

Insurers act within the law, they don't write it.

nails1979

597 posts

142 months

Wednesday 9th October 2013
quotequote all
Grey Ghost said:
and an accident management company will do this for the OP.
Read the rellys again and see the law and reasons why not. I work for a claims management company and when these claims fall on my desk then they get closed down straight away. There is no money to be made here, nothing to see move along now.