Insurance liability - failed tyre causes damage
Discussion
A couple of weeks back I was passing an articulated lorry on the M1 and his tyre delaminated or puntured and came off into the path of my car causing damage.
I exchanged details with the lorry driver who was apologetic and his fleet manager also. He just advised me to contact my insurance and it would be sorted.
Speaking with my insurance company today the other parties insurance are suggesting that they are not liable unless we can demonstrate that the lorry was not adequately maintained etc
This seems a joke. I don't care what caused the fault, it happened and damaged my car.
Interested in the views of any insurance experts. I intend to challenge this all the way.
David
I exchanged details with the lorry driver who was apologetic and his fleet manager also. He just advised me to contact my insurance and it would be sorted.
Speaking with my insurance company today the other parties insurance are suggesting that they are not liable unless we can demonstrate that the lorry was not adequately maintained etc
This seems a joke. I don't care what caused the fault, it happened and damaged my car.
Interested in the views of any insurance experts. I intend to challenge this all the way.
David
It's no different than if that tyre had caused him to crash into your car, rather than just the tyre causing damage.
Just because the vehicle is maintained, doesn't negate the claim for damages - although the difference here will probably be that if he'd crashed into you due to a tyre failure then he'd be paying out on his road insurance. In this case they're probably trying to claim from public liability insurance or something.
Just because the vehicle is maintained, doesn't negate the claim for damages - although the difference here will probably be that if he'd crashed into you due to a tyre failure then he'd be paying out on his road insurance. In this case they're probably trying to claim from public liability insurance or something.
Exactly the same thing happened to me about 10 years ago on the A14 and had the same reply from my insurance company, i could not get proof of "failure to maintain" from the truck company so had to take the hit myself. Youre very unlikely to get any info from the truck company which will show that they are liable, thats why the driver and the manager are so "helpful", as they know the insurance company's view.
phumy said:
Exactly the same thing happened to me about 10 years ago on the A14 and had the same reply from my insurance company, i could not get proof of "failure to maintain" from the truck company so had to take the hit myself. Youre very unlikely to get any info from the truck company which will show that they are liable, thats why the driver and the manager are so "helpful", as they know the insurance company's view.
It just seems completely wrong to me to even begin to proceed down a route of me having to prove that they were negligent - it's irrelevant. I think this is a way of insurance companies trying to avoid paying out on small claims and it is a scandal. I'm not falling for that one.Do you have photos to support your case?
I'm finding at the moment if you mean, b
h and argue with the insurance company and they realise youre not going to go away, then things will happen.
It does suck a lot of your time up in phone calls though, and be prepared for dealing with incompetent and inept monkeys on the other end.
I'm finding at the moment if you mean, b
h and argue with the insurance company and they realise youre not going to go away, then things will happen.It does suck a lot of your time up in phone calls though, and be prepared for dealing with incompetent and inept monkeys on the other end.
*Fletch* said:
Do you have photos to support your case?
It was 11:00 at night and dark at the side of a motorway. I have photos of the damage but not at the side of the road itself. The lorry driver is not disputing that his tyre caused the damage. Edited by XTR2Turbo on Thursday 9th July 11:29
XTR2Turbo said:
This seems a joke. I don't care what caused the fault, it happened and damaged my car.
I fully sympathise and advise you to keep fighting BUT seem to recall a similar case from a couple of years ago where the lorry was found to be not at fault.It is all down to negligence, and providing they can show their vehicle was well maintained, what else could they possibly have done to prevent this accident ? If it had flicked up a stone from the road and damaged your bonnet or windscreen would you say they were at fault ?
Sorry, but I have a nasty feeling you will have to claim any repairs through your own insurance.
PS - I think 'Noger' on here works directly in insurance, so may be able to clarify.
Edited by aquatix on Thursday 9th July 11:55
BUT... blame is irrelevant. Cause is more apt.
The Lorry caused damage to his car. This is why we have Insurance. Accidents happen.
Whether malicious, accidental, preventable or not, the affect/ outcome is still damage caused by one vehicle to another.
As has been mentioned it is what specific part of Insurance will be the liable.
The Lorry caused damage to his car. This is why we have Insurance. Accidents happen.
Whether malicious, accidental, preventable or not, the affect/ outcome is still damage caused by one vehicle to another.
As has been mentioned it is what specific part of Insurance will be the liable.
Sorry to bring another consideration into the mix ..but...
The manufacturer of the tyre may also share some blame here.
Many (but not all by any means) transport companies run their trailers and units on retreads on every axle barring the steering axle(s)
Super single tyres(385/65/22.5 those found on many trailers) are prone to shedding their tread en-bloc when there is a defect in the vulcanising process.
The haulage company can submit the tyre 'for claim' back to the manufacturer if it is believed to have failed prematurely.
They can also claim for any subsequent damage the shedding of the tyre causes either via the tyre manufacturers insurance or their own.
All the above of course, depends on the quality of the retread in the first place and what warranty has been given by the manufacturer.
Some tyres on the roads today really shouldn't be, but in these hard times 'cheap and cheerful' can often be preferred to quality. The question as to whether the company was using cheap and cheerful rather than quality tyres could be a deciding factor in any subsequent claim where tyre failure has caused damage.
Anyway that's my two penn'orth...as you were...
The manufacturer of the tyre may also share some blame here.
Many (but not all by any means) transport companies run their trailers and units on retreads on every axle barring the steering axle(s)
Super single tyres(385/65/22.5 those found on many trailers) are prone to shedding their tread en-bloc when there is a defect in the vulcanising process.
The haulage company can submit the tyre 'for claim' back to the manufacturer if it is believed to have failed prematurely.
They can also claim for any subsequent damage the shedding of the tyre causes either via the tyre manufacturers insurance or their own.
All the above of course, depends on the quality of the retread in the first place and what warranty has been given by the manufacturer.
Some tyres on the roads today really shouldn't be, but in these hard times 'cheap and cheerful' can often be preferred to quality. The question as to whether the company was using cheap and cheerful rather than quality tyres could be a deciding factor in any subsequent claim where tyre failure has caused damage.
Anyway that's my two penn'orth...as you were...
Have you spoken with Steve Greensmith (anniesdad on here)? He runs an accident management company and has helped many PHers (myself included) with some very tricky and difficult claims. His website is www.europaconsultants.co.uk and his direct number is on the contacts page. Certainly worth chatting to at the very least!
esselte said:
HRG. said:
Do correctly maintained tyres delaminate?
Yes they can do...however good your inspection routine is, unless you x-ray each tyre you won't spot a vulcanising defect until it blows up and sends the tread into orbit...OP said:
his tyre delaminated or puntured (sic)
and the only way to determine which of the two actually happened is by professional examination.So (not trying to be smart here) esselte, but, what's your point?
oldsoak said:
esselte said:
HRG. said:
Do correctly maintained tyres delaminate?
Yes they can do...however good your inspection routine is, unless you x-ray each tyre you won't spot a vulcanising defect until it blows up and sends the tread into orbit...OP said:
his tyre delaminated or puntured (sic)
and the only way to determine which of the two actually happened is by professional examination.So (not trying to be smart here) esselte, but, what's your point?
I think you should pursue it so as you don't take a hit in the wallet, however.
If the company can prove they have done everything right as regards maintaince and buying quality tyres,etc, they could argue that their driver simply drove over a pothole/nail/badger, which then cause the catastophic failure of the tyre.
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
If the company can prove they have done everything right as regards maintaince and buying quality tyres,etc, they could argue that their driver simply drove over a pothole/nail/badger, which then cause the catastophic failure of the tyre.
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
Klankie said:
I think you should pursue it so as you don't take a hit in the wallet, however.
If the company can prove they have done everything right as regards maintaince and buying quality tyres,etc, they could argue that their driver simply drove over a pothole/nail/badger, which then cause the catastophic failure of the tyre.
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
Yes they can.If the company can prove they have done everything right as regards maintaince and buying quality tyres,etc, they could argue that their driver simply drove over a pothole/nail/badger, which then cause the catastophic failure of the tyre.
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
Klankie said:
I think you should pursue it so as you don't take a hit in the wallet, however.
If the company can prove they have done everything right as regards maintaince and buying quality tyres,etc, they could argue that their driver simply drove over a pothole/nail/badger, which then cause the catastophic failure of the tyre.
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
Indeed they can. Lets say the lorry hit a pot hole the wheel burst and then the lorry veered in to the car because of the burt tyre. You would happily say the insurance of the lorry driver should pay. Now If the tyre failed because of some third party issue, ie pot hole, then the insurance still pays out but the lorry drivers insurance may have another claim against the highways maintenance company.If the company can prove they have done everything right as regards maintaince and buying quality tyres,etc, they could argue that their driver simply drove over a pothole/nail/badger, which then cause the catastophic failure of the tyre.
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
Klankie said:
Yes their tyre caused the damage but they can't be liable for the reason it failed if it was outwith their control.
Yes, as per my previous post you are unlikely to succeed unless you can prove they were in some way negligent or could otherwise have prevented the accident.Also confirmed here:
http://www.roadsidelawyer.co.uk/questions/damage-t...
A similar anomaly exists if a driver crashes into you as a result of a fit or other such medical problem that they were previously unaware of. They are held to be not at fault for causing the accident even though common sense says that their car did the damage.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff