Insurance claim against me
Discussion
Gents, help from the PH collective please.
Paste of post in the TVR forum below:
IIRC there was a reference to a firm of lawyers that had a TVR connection?
If anyone can give me a steer, then I'd be obliged.
What's happened is that I was 'phoned by Mannings this morning who advised it was time for renewal. However, because of a pending claim, the premium has gone up by £100'sh.
"What claim", I enquired! Turns out my car flicked up a stone on a local road which caused a chip on the bonnet and windscreen of following car. Allegedly, I was driving erratically!! I have no recollection of the incident at all
I was traced by the number plate recognition system....but this morning was the first I knew anything about it! The guys at Mannings think it is a rather petulant (their word) claim. It could happen on any of the UK's current roads, IMHO. I guess I could argue that the other vehicle/claimant was following too close? From what I was told by Dave at Mannings, the whole claim would only amount to £100 - £200. (Probably close to the claimant's excess anyway?)
What do you guys think about this?
Nick
Paste of post in the TVR forum below:
IIRC there was a reference to a firm of lawyers that had a TVR connection?
If anyone can give me a steer, then I'd be obliged.
What's happened is that I was 'phoned by Mannings this morning who advised it was time for renewal. However, because of a pending claim, the premium has gone up by £100'sh.
"What claim", I enquired! Turns out my car flicked up a stone on a local road which caused a chip on the bonnet and windscreen of following car. Allegedly, I was driving erratically!! I have no recollection of the incident at all
I was traced by the number plate recognition system....but this morning was the first I knew anything about it! The guys at Mannings think it is a rather petulant (their word) claim. It could happen on any of the UK's current roads, IMHO. I guess I could argue that the other vehicle/claimant was following too close? From what I was told by Dave at Mannings, the whole claim would only amount to £100 - £200. (Probably close to the claimant's excess anyway?)
What do you guys think about this?
Nick
I've no idea but if they're successful in claiming I need to make about 100 claims on other drivers for the stone and windscreen chips on my car. I would have thought your insurance company would have laughed out loud when they saw it - I'd be querying why they're even entertaining the idea of paying out on such a spurious claim
For a successful claim there would have to be an ability to sue you for negligence - ie you failed in your duty of care to othr road users.
I cannot see for one moment how a stone chip can be either proven to have come from your driving, (as opposed to another vehicle say oncoming) nor can I see how you could prevent a stone chip from a road surface being picked up by a wheel. In essence, I cannot see how a claim could ever be successful or that there is any evidence of negligence leading to loss.
I cannot see for one moment how a stone chip can be either proven to have come from your driving, (as opposed to another vehicle say oncoming) nor can I see how you could prevent a stone chip from a road surface being picked up by a wheel. In essence, I cannot see how a claim could ever be successful or that there is any evidence of negligence leading to loss.
I really struggle with these stories that always appear during school holidays.
Show me where the negligence is. If you can't then there is no claim. Simple as that.
Tell you what. PM me the details and I'll ring your broker and underwriter for you and explain that simple concept to them.
Show me where the negligence is. If you can't then there is no claim. Simple as that.
Tell you what. PM me the details and I'll ring your broker and underwriter for you and explain that simple concept to them.
Forgot to add. The person whose windscreen was smashed will have had to pay out about £70 as a market norm figure with no impact to their NCD unless they're with swiftcover.
Do you really think that they'd be pursuing this?
Hint - they wouldn't be and nor would their insurer. My lot would just laugh at any insurer trying to log such a spurious claim.
Do you really think that they'd be pursuing this?
Hint - they wouldn't be and nor would their insurer. My lot would just laugh at any insurer trying to log such a spurious claim.
I'd like to know how the OP's insurers have accepted a claim against their client without the client in effect 'authorising' the use of the policy by the submission of a claim form (or other similar authority).
Whilst it is galling to get damage to your P&J by a kicked up stone by a car in front there is little case for negligence - perhaps hooning past another car on a freshly laid road could be argued but probably 99% are as is previously intimated a case of no negligence can be proven. Who is to say at that moment little johnny thug throws a stone from the pavement that has caused the damage?
Whilst it is galling to get damage to your P&J by a kicked up stone by a car in front there is little case for negligence - perhaps hooning past another car on a freshly laid road could be argued but probably 99% are as is previously intimated a case of no negligence can be proven. Who is to say at that moment little johnny thug throws a stone from the pavement that has caused the damage?
LoonR1 said:
I really struggle with these stories that always appear during school holidays.
Show me where the negligence is. If you can't then there is no claim. Simple as that.
Tell you what. PM me the details and I'll ring your broker and underwriter for you and explain that simple concept to them.
Would the 'Allegedly, I was driving erratically' have a bearing?Show me where the negligence is. If you can't then there is no claim. Simple as that.
Tell you what. PM me the details and I'll ring your broker and underwriter for you and explain that simple concept to them.
elanfan said:
I'd like to know how the OP's insurers have accepted a claim against their client without the client in effect 'authorising' the use of the policy by the submission of a claim form (or other similar authority).
Whilst it is galling to get damage to your P&J by a kicked up stone by a car in front there is little case for negligence - perhaps hooning past another car on a freshly laid road could be argued but probably 99% are as is previously intimated a case of no negligence can be proven. Who is to say at that moment little johnny thug throws a stone from the pavement that has caused the damage?
Happens all the time as customers who are at fault tend to "forget" to inform is of the incident. First we know is when the other side inform us and we try to unlock the mess. Whilst it is galling to get damage to your P&J by a kicked up stone by a car in front there is little case for negligence - perhaps hooning past another car on a freshly laid road could be argued but probably 99% are as is previously intimated a case of no negligence can be proven. Who is to say at that moment little johnny thug throws a stone from the pavement that has caused the damage?
That doesn't mean I believe this for one second though
Rick101 said:
Would the 'Allegedly, I was driving erratically' have a bearing?
All about proof 
Its up to the person claiming to prove their claim. I overtook a tipper lorry on an A road once. Despite the company receiving lots of claims because they failed to shut the door at the back they wouldn't budge on their position. I had no proof it was there lorry that smashed my windscreen so I sucked it up, paid my excess and got on with my life.
Is it so hard to believe someone would try on a claim like this over a small windscreen repair excess ?
10 minutes on any internet forum will tell you the world has plenty of people who'd be happy to wage war on a small country over an issue worth less than 50p, provided they could do it at no cost to themselves and could do it all by email, so not need to get out of their chair or pick up a phone
10 minutes on any internet forum will tell you the world has plenty of people who'd be happy to wage war on a small country over an issue worth less than 50p, provided they could do it at no cost to themselves and could do it all by email, so not need to get out of their chair or pick up a phone
It is hard to believe as the insurer of the claimant would tell them it's a non starter as would the TP insurer when they receive the claim.
Just seem the OPs initial thread in the TVR for and his opening line is about getting a solicitor to fight this. I despair of the BS litigious bravado in this place.
Just seem the OPs initial thread in the TVR for and his opening line is about getting a solicitor to fight this. I despair of the BS litigious bravado in this place.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff