3rd party Insurance company not paying mine

3rd party Insurance company not paying mine

Author
Discussion

scrwright

Original Poster:

2,616 posts

190 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
Wifey was run into by a local electrical company van last november, other driver admitted liability & the BiB gave him a driver education course. My insurance paid up but it now seems the other parties insurance company won't pay the NFU and it is going to court shortly. Is this normal? Been told we may need to make an appearance as witnesses, will it get that far?

thoughts please

ta

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
More to it than you've posted.

scrwright

Original Poster:

2,616 posts

190 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
in what way?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
That if the claim was as straightforward as you've stated then they'd simply pay. What's the crash circumstances in detail?

Conviction or police action doesn't make the other side automatically liable. It does in most cases, but not all.

scrwright

Original Poster:

2,616 posts

190 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
wife stationary in queue for lights, van driver didn't stop, hit wifey hard enough to push her into van in front, all 3 vehicles written off. Independent witnesses, everyone (including police) blame sparky van. NFU paid our claim straight away, now thier legal team has informed us of the court case.

Nigel Worc's

8,121 posts

188 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
Sometimes your experiences can be different from others Loon.

Back in 2008 I had an own fault accident caused by an undiagnosed medical condition.

I did a lot of damage to other peoples property.

I was paid out within a month, but the other parties issued proceedings against me, nearly twelve months later, as they hadn't been paid.

My insurance then paid out, like they should have done in the begining.

Why do they do that ?

CYMR0

3,940 posts

200 months

Tuesday 8th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
That if the claim was as straightforward as you've stated then they should simply pay. What's the crash circumstances in detail?

Conviction or police action doesn't make the other side automatically liable. It does in most cases, but not all.
Sometimes insurers are just inept, the file gets buried, etc.

Most of the time there will be more to it and the insurer will have a good reason for being recalcitrant but a small percentage of insurers' systems (or individual staff) are not up to the job.

ging84

8,890 posts

146 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
it's a multi vehicle accident, so it's not straight forward
if it is going to court they may be accepting some liability but not all of it

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
Nigel Worc's said:
Sometimes your experiences can be different from others Loon.

Back in 2008 I had an own fault accident caused by an undiagnosed medical condition.

I did a lot of damage to other peoples property.

I was paid out within a month, but the other parties issued proceedings against me, nearly twelve months later, as they hadn't been paid.

My insurance then paid out, like they should have done in the begining.

Why do they do that ?
Not true. Your insurers had an automaton defence potentially and were right not to pay out initially. They should've decided earlier whether to pursue the defence though and avoid litigation.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
There we go. More to it than first posted. Your wife is in the middle. The van insurer at the back will be denying responsibility for the one at the front and assert you hit that first. Their driver is probably claiming this and they will be taking their clients instruction on this.

scrwright

Original Poster:

2,616 posts

190 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
NFU had received a letter from rear van stating they were accepting liability. Frfom my understanding from the letters received the liability has been agreed by all 3 insurance companies, and this is just a failure to pay. Can they change their mind after admitting liability? The actual claim value for us is not huge, no medical claims etc.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
Then the van drivers insurer has messed up and probably lost the request for outlay. That or they're in a mess work wise and simply haven't got round to it yet and NFU have rightly lost patience and litigated.

anonymous-user

54 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
does it make any difference if the handbrake was off and too close to the other car, for example, in accidents like this?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
No. Why should it? The only reason the OPs wife went I to the car in front was because she was hit from behind based on what the OP has told us.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,342 posts

150 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
Nigel Worc's said:
Sometimes your experiences can be different from others Loon.

Back in 2008 I had an own fault accident caused by an undiagnosed medical condition.

I did a lot of damage to other peoples property.

I was paid out within a month, but the other parties issued proceedings against me, nearly twelve months later, as they hadn't been paid.

My insurance then paid out, like they should have done in the begining.

Why do they do that ?
If the accident was caused by an undiagnosed medical condition, and you weren't negligent, why did your insurers pay the tp claim???

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the accident was caused by an undiagnosed medical condition, and you weren't negligent, why did your insurers pay the tp claim???
The ABI has tried to create a voluntary market agreement that automaton defences are only used in the rarest of circumstances. See my earlier post.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,342 posts

150 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the accident was caused by an undiagnosed medical condition, and you weren't negligent, why did your insurers pay the tp claim???
The ABI has tried to create a voluntary market agreement that automaton defences are only used in the rarest of circumstances. See my earlier post.
I wish they'd stop interfering, and leave the law of negligence and tort to decide. If I had a blackout at the wheel, out of the blue, with no previous history or warning that it was coming, I'd be pretty peeved if my insurers were obliged to pay a tp claim.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I wish they'd stop interfering, and leave the law of negligence and tort to decide. If I had a blackout at the wheel, out of the blue, with no previous history or warning that it was coming, I'd be pretty peeved if my insurers were obliged to pay a tp claim.
In that case automaton defence would be OK. It's been heavily abused in the past where it was tenuous at best and just dragged claims out for no good reason.

ging84

8,890 posts

146 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
I bet if you were hit by someone having a blackout you'd be even more peeved to find their insurance didn't cover it

scrwright

Original Poster:

2,616 posts

190 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
The Spruce goose said:
does it make any difference if the handbrake was off and too close to the other car, for example, in accidents like this?
Wifey was stationary, auto box in N, handbrake on, about 1/2 car length from van in front. 3 ton of van at 35mph has some energy! Bent the shell of her grand cherokee, pushed her into 10yo transit which pushed its rear doors in and mangled the rear door frame to make it b.e.r.

Back to my original question. I take it this is more likely to be an admin cockup then rather than them now contesting the facts/claim?