Trying to help a mate (insurance claim)
Discussion
Back in September my mate got rear ended on his motorbike, another biker ran into the back of him while he was stationary. The other rider admitted liability & that has not changed (he actually said at the time that he'd only just bought a big bike & that it scared the s
t out of him every time he rode it!) Anyway my mate has been off work since due to knee damage for which he is finally undergoing surgery for this week. I found out today from his brother in law that both he & the guy who caused the accident are insured by the same company & that the same claims management company represent both parties.
So I'm asking if he should go elsewhere for claims management as I feel there is a conflict of interest where they will be trying to minimise his payout for injury, his bike was sorted in the first few weeks & they even gave him a courtesy bike (even though he couldn't ride it due to his knee!) until he was paid out on that, but they are stalling on everything else. He was on SSP until recently & asked if he could get an interim payment as he has been struggling to pay his rent etc but they told him they were waiting to see if the operation is a success.
Your opinions please.
t out of him every time he rode it!) Anyway my mate has been off work since due to knee damage for which he is finally undergoing surgery for this week. I found out today from his brother in law that both he & the guy who caused the accident are insured by the same company & that the same claims management company represent both parties. So I'm asking if he should go elsewhere for claims management as I feel there is a conflict of interest where they will be trying to minimise his payout for injury, his bike was sorted in the first few weeks & they even gave him a courtesy bike (even though he couldn't ride it due to his knee!) until he was paid out on that, but they are stalling on everything else. He was on SSP until recently & asked if he could get an interim payment as he has been struggling to pay his rent etc but they told him they were waiting to see if the operation is a success.
Your opinions please.
Not this st again.
There are unbelievably strict regulatory rules around intra group claims. So much so that the rigour and due diligence on them makes them probably the best handled claims out of all of them. There will be absolutely no collusion despite the conspiracy theorists assertions to the contrary.
I usually insist on policy being that they are handled in differemt sites, at the very least in different ownership areas and never within the same team. Any attempt to circumvent the strict rules is a gross misconduct issue.
No insurer will breach these rules, so you can forget the conspiracy stuff.
ICOBS 8.3.3.1 Conflicts of Interest is the relevant regulation adapted into FSA and now FCA claims handling principles.
t again. There are unbelievably strict regulatory rules around intra group claims. So much so that the rigour and due diligence on them makes them probably the best handled claims out of all of them. There will be absolutely no collusion despite the conspiracy theorists assertions to the contrary.
I usually insist on policy being that they are handled in differemt sites, at the very least in different ownership areas and never within the same team. Any attempt to circumvent the strict rules is a gross misconduct issue.
No insurer will breach these rules, so you can forget the conspiracy stuff.
ICOBS 8.3.3.1 Conflicts of Interest is the relevant regulation adapted into FSA and now FCA claims handling principles.
Edited by LoonR1 on Tuesday 10th March 23:01
Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 15th March 10:04
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff