Insurers pushing OH to use legal expenses cover
Discussion
My OH was stationary in traffic at a red light when she was hit up the rear by the 3rd party. All pretty clear cut and it was downhill so it can't even be claimed she rolled backwards and caused the damage.
This all happened months ago and the 3rd party insurers have apparently just been ignoring our insurers, who are claiming they can't get hold of them. We have paid the excess and had the car repaired, so just want a no fault established so our premiums go back down.
Now OH's insurers have said they are going to start court action (good) but have sent forms and Ts&Cs to OH to start this as a separate claim on her legal expenses cover. This then puts the risk back on my OH if costs get out of hand or, presumably, if they lose the case (say a witness is magically invented).
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
This all happened months ago and the 3rd party insurers have apparently just been ignoring our insurers, who are claiming they can't get hold of them. We have paid the excess and had the car repaired, so just want a no fault established so our premiums go back down.
Now OH's insurers have said they are going to start court action (good) but have sent forms and Ts&Cs to OH to start this as a separate claim on her legal expenses cover. This then puts the risk back on my OH if costs get out of hand or, presumably, if they lose the case (say a witness is magically invented).
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
bstark said:
My OH was stationary in traffic at a red light when she was hit up the rear by the 3rd party. All pretty clear cut and it was downhill so it can't even be claimed she rolled backwards and caused the damage.
This all happened months ago and the 3rd party insurers have apparently just been ignoring our insurers, who are claiming they can't get hold of them. We have paid the excess and had the car repaired, so just want a no fault established so our premiums go back down.
Now OH's insurers have said they are going to start court action (good) but have sent forms and Ts&Cs to OH to start this as a separate claim on her legal expenses cover. This then puts the risk back on my OH if costs get out of hand or, presumably, if they lose the case (say a witness is magically invented).
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
That shows an astonishing lack of understanding of both legal expenses an insurance in general. This all happened months ago and the 3rd party insurers have apparently just been ignoring our insurers, who are claiming they can't get hold of them. We have paid the excess and had the car repaired, so just want a no fault established so our premiums go back down.
Now OH's insurers have said they are going to start court action (good) but have sent forms and Ts&Cs to OH to start this as a separate claim on her legal expenses cover. This then puts the risk back on my OH if costs get out of hand or, presumably, if they lose the case (say a witness is magically invented).
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
There is no way I can even start to unravel that and try to explain it to you.
I had a very similar situation a few yrs ago
I had bought a new to me car 1hr before an idiot drove into the side of me !!
He admitted it was his fault ...in a rush to pick wife up etc.
Gave me his name address insurance details pictures taken
Contacted my insurance with all the details , had my car repaired etc.
5 months later had a letter off MY insurance asking would I go to court and give my version of accident
Rang them and asked what was going on as I had given all details of 3rd party
Tw.. who had run into me had never answered any letter from his insurance and had never reported the accident
Threat of court to him must have frightened cr.. out of him
2 weeks later had letter saying all sorted .
My insurance said it was the legal aid dept who sorted it eventually
I had bought a new to me car 1hr before an idiot drove into the side of me !!
He admitted it was his fault ...in a rush to pick wife up etc.
Gave me his name address insurance details pictures taken
Contacted my insurance with all the details , had my car repaired etc.
5 months later had a letter off MY insurance asking would I go to court and give my version of accident
Rang them and asked what was going on as I had given all details of 3rd party
Tw.. who had run into me had never answered any letter from his insurance and had never reported the accident
Threat of court to him must have frightened cr.. out of him
2 weeks later had letter saying all sorted .
My insurance said it was the legal aid dept who sorted it eventually
Edited by x type on Wednesday 18th November 20:58
bstark said:
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
A quick google turned this up on the financial ombudsman site:motor legal expenses / uninsured loss recovery insurance
Most motor insurance policies cover only insured losses - in other words, the loss or damage to the vehicle and the legal liability to third parties. There may also be uninsured losses, such as the policy excess, loss of personal possessions in the vehicle, personal injuries and loss of use of the vehicle.
Consumers are often offered the option of legal expenses / uninsured loss recovery insurance, when taking out a motor insurance policy. This insurance is designed to fund the cost of taking legal action, to recover the uninsured losses, against the party that caused the accident.
Like legal expenses insurance added to household policies, an insurer other than the motor insurer will usually underwrite or administer the uninsured loss-recovery insurance.
LoonR1 said:
bstark said:
Well if I understood it totally and knew the answer I wouldn't have asked the question, would I?
But thanks for your contribution :-)
The statements that you've made are the problem, nothing to do with the questions. But thanks for your contribution :-)
Shame.
bstark said:
My OH was stationary in traffic at a red light when she was hit up the rear by the 3rd party. All pretty clear cut and it was downhill so it can't even be claimed she rolled backwards and caused the damage.
This all happened months ago and the 3rd party insurers have apparently just been ignoring our insurers, who are claiming they can't get hold of them. We have paid the excess and had the car repaired, so just want a no fault established so our premiums go back down.
Now OH's insurers have said they are going to start court action (good) but have sent forms and Ts&Cs to OH to start this as a separate claim on her legal expenses cover. This then puts the risk back on my OH if costs get out of hand or, presumably, if they lose the case (say a witness is magically invented).
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
Wouldn't worry about it, it's not unusual.This all happened months ago and the 3rd party insurers have apparently just been ignoring our insurers, who are claiming they can't get hold of them. We have paid the excess and had the car repaired, so just want a no fault established so our premiums go back down.
Now OH's insurers have said they are going to start court action (good) but have sent forms and Ts&Cs to OH to start this as a separate claim on her legal expenses cover. This then puts the risk back on my OH if costs get out of hand or, presumably, if they lose the case (say a witness is magically invented).
Are they within their rights to do this? I was under the impression legal expenses was to recover personal injury losses or uninsured losses. Should our insurance company not be simply pursuing it directly to recover their losses for the repair, as part of their obligation under the insurance contract?
Forget Loon, for all he professes to know he's an absolute a
hole. LoonR1 said:
bad company said:
Loon has considerable expertise in this area but sometimes considers it beneath him to help.
Shame.
No, I find it impossible to explain it when there is nothing in the OP that makes any semblance of sense. Shame.
Consider it this way.
Today I drove my earwig along a house to get some TV, the walls whilst green were also a lovely shade of beef and smelt of eyeballs. I anoraked a state to rubber the speaker, however that step grew a larger twig. So my question. Based on this, if a fat dog does a wet fart on a rainy night in Glasgow will Mars survive the tote?
Make sense to you? Any chance of unraveling that and explaining it?
LoonR1 said:
Consider it this way.
Today I drove my earwig along a house to get some TV, the walls whilst green were also a lovely shade of beef and smelt of eyeballs. I anoraked a state to rubber the speaker, however that step grew a larger twig. So my question. Based on this, if a fat dog does a wet fart on a rainy night in Glasgow will Mars survive the tote?
Make sense to you? Any chance of unraveling that and explaining it?
Sounds like bad acid. Better have a chat with your dealer.Today I drove my earwig along a house to get some TV, the walls whilst green were also a lovely shade of beef and smelt of eyeballs. I anoraked a state to rubber the speaker, however that step grew a larger twig. So my question. Based on this, if a fat dog does a wet fart on a rainy night in Glasgow will Mars survive the tote?
Make sense to you? Any chance of unraveling that and explaining it?
Thanks to those trying to help.
Background: my missus was stationary in traffic when hit from behind by a third party. She is fully comp. She called her insurance, explained it and had the car repaired for the cost of the excess. We expected this to be sorted quickly as clearly no fault on her side, in the meantime our premiums have risen as the accident is not resolved as a no fault yet.
Since then: lots of calls to our insurance to chase progress. They have stated that it is clearly not my missus' fault and that they are pushing for a response from the third party.
Now: our insurance have arranged for court proceedings to start against the third party. This however seems to be set up so the proceedings and any costs that are outside the legal expenses cover are on behalf of my missus, with the legal firm stating they cannot take any instruction from our insurance company.
My question is: should our insurance company be issuing proceedings themselves as part of their service rather than placing the risk (such as it might be - we have no idea how expensive these things get and it isn't clear from the terms and conditions that have been sent) on my other half.
Not being involved in accidents, claims or legal proceedings on a regular basis my other half is stressed by what liability she may be taking on and is thinking of dropping it. Which annoys me as this is what the third party insurers are banking on happening.
LoonR1 said:
No, I find it impossible to explain it when there is nothing in the OP that makes any semblance of sense.
Ok, I apologise, as I thought it was pretty clear. But here goes, as simply as I can make it:Background: my missus was stationary in traffic when hit from behind by a third party. She is fully comp. She called her insurance, explained it and had the car repaired for the cost of the excess. We expected this to be sorted quickly as clearly no fault on her side, in the meantime our premiums have risen as the accident is not resolved as a no fault yet.
Since then: lots of calls to our insurance to chase progress. They have stated that it is clearly not my missus' fault and that they are pushing for a response from the third party.
Now: our insurance have arranged for court proceedings to start against the third party. This however seems to be set up so the proceedings and any costs that are outside the legal expenses cover are on behalf of my missus, with the legal firm stating they cannot take any instruction from our insurance company.
My question is: should our insurance company be issuing proceedings themselves as part of their service rather than placing the risk (such as it might be - we have no idea how expensive these things get and it isn't clear from the terms and conditions that have been sent) on my other half.
Not being involved in accidents, claims or legal proceedings on a regular basis my other half is stressed by what liability she may be taking on and is thinking of dropping it. Which annoys me as this is what the third party insurers are banking on happening.
Unfortunately, the gobbledygook of insurance defeats the layman, which is most of us. You would expect common sense and decency to win in legal proceedings, but IANAL.
Little bit surprised in Loon as suspect he should have picked the bones out of your question, maybe he's having a bad day , we all do.
At the end of the day, your good lady has done no wrong, how can she lose anything regarding these proceedings ?
Little bit surprised in Loon as suspect he should have picked the bones out of your question, maybe he's having a bad day , we all do.
At the end of the day, your good lady has done no wrong, how can she lose anything regarding these proceedings ?
bstark said:
Ok, I apologise, as I thought it was pretty clear. But here goes, as simply as I can make it:
Background: my missus was stationary in traffic when hit from behind by a third party. She is fully comp. She called her insurance, explained it and had the car repaired for the cost of the excess. We expected this to be sorted quickly as clearly no fault on her side, in the meantime our premiums have risen as the accident is not resolved as a no fault yet.
Since then: lots of calls to our insurance to chase progress. They have stated that it is clearly not my missus' fault and that they are pushing for a response from the third party.
Now: our insurance have arranged for court proceedings to start against the third party. This however seems to be set up so the proceedings and any costs that are outside the legal expenses cover are on behalf of my missus, with the legal firm stating they cannot take any instruction from our insurance company.
My question is: should our insurance company be issuing proceedings themselves as part of their service rather than placing the risk (such as it might be - we have no idea how expensive these things get and it isn't clear from the terms and conditions that have been sent) on my other half.
Not being involved in accidents, claims or legal proceedings on a regular basis my other half is stressed by what liability she may be taking on and is thinking of dropping it. Which annoys me as this is what the third party insurers are banking on happening.
Ok, it's late and I'll have a go at trying to make sense of this for you. I can't answer your post, because it still doesn't make a lot of sense. Background: my missus was stationary in traffic when hit from behind by a third party. She is fully comp. She called her insurance, explained it and had the car repaired for the cost of the excess. We expected this to be sorted quickly as clearly no fault on her side, in the meantime our premiums have risen as the accident is not resolved as a no fault yet.
Since then: lots of calls to our insurance to chase progress. They have stated that it is clearly not my missus' fault and that they are pushing for a response from the third party.
Now: our insurance have arranged for court proceedings to start against the third party. This however seems to be set up so the proceedings and any costs that are outside the legal expenses cover are on behalf of my missus, with the legal firm stating they cannot take any instruction from our insurance company.
My question is: should our insurance company be issuing proceedings themselves as part of their service rather than placing the risk (such as it might be - we have no idea how expensive these things get and it isn't clear from the terms and conditions that have been sent) on my other half.
Not being involved in accidents, claims or legal proceedings on a regular basis my other half is stressed by what liability she may be taking on and is thinking of dropping it. Which annoys me as this is what the third party insurers are banking on happening.
Your insurer is acting perfectly reasonably amd correctly. They have started proceedings to speed this up as they can't get any movement from the other side. Until they recover their outlay in full, they can not reasonably state that your claim was non-fault. However, as you also have money to recover (your excess) they want to quite correctly combine the proceedings into one court case for one amount of money. If they didn't, then the other insurer could quite rightly refuse your subsequent request for the refund of your excess (unless MOU was agreed, but I doubt you would know how to do that).
Your insurer have therefore asked you to use your legal expenses policy to cover the costs of the litigation. There is zero cost to you, these cover your for fees running to the £millions, and you won't be breaching that unless your claim is something really special. Your legal expenses insurer gets their fees back when they win and everyone is happy.
TL:DR
They are doing it right and you're stressing over nothing.
x type said:
I had a very similar situation a few yrs ago
I had bought a new to me car 1hr before an idiot drove into the side of me !!
He admitted it was his fault ...in a rush to pick wife up etc.
Gave me his name address insurance details pictures taken
Contacted my insurance with all the details , had my car repaired etc.
5 months later had a letter off MY insurance asking would I go to court and give my version of accident
Rang them and asked what was going on as I had given all details of 3rd party
Tw.. who had run into me had never answered any letter from his insurance and had never reported the accident
Threat of court to him must have frightened cr.. out of him
2 weeks later had letter saying all sorted .
My insurance said it was the legal aid dept who sorted it eventually
Now, having helped out, this is shocking. Truly shocking. It really shows zero understanding of insurance and it's painful to read this. I had bought a new to me car 1hr before an idiot drove into the side of me !!
He admitted it was his fault ...in a rush to pick wife up etc.
Gave me his name address insurance details pictures taken
Contacted my insurance with all the details , had my car repaired etc.
5 months later had a letter off MY insurance asking would I go to court and give my version of accident
Rang them and asked what was going on as I had given all details of 3rd party
Tw.. who had run into me had never answered any letter from his insurance and had never reported the accident
Threat of court to him must have frightened cr.. out of him
2 weeks later had letter saying all sorted .
My insurance said it was the legal aid dept who sorted it eventually
Edited by x type on Wednesday 18th November 20:58
Firstly, your insurer asked you to go to court, so that you could make your case. You are the claimant, not your insurer. You have to make the case that the other driver was there and caused the damage. Without you, there is no case and you lose.
the court tactic is well used to threaten the other side amd they usually fold, but you need to help your insurer, or they won't get their money back and you won't get your NCD or excess back either.
The comment about "legal aid department", well, I mean........ What. The. f
k. Seriously 
years ago I had a similar experience, in that a driver caused damage to my car, admitted it to me and provided insurance dets, then proceeded to ignore his own insurance co when they tried to get his version of events (I dealt with his insurers direct to save my excess). His insurance co authorised the repair of my car ahead of him even contacting them (I was stationary and t boned by him in a carpark, so no way it was my fault) they eventually informed me when he did finally acknowledge the incident.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff