Insurance - claim on top of a claim
Discussion
A mate of mine was knocked off his bike by a van last week; the van has admitted fault and bike/kit damage will be sorted by the van's insurance, however, he was knocked off into a taxi, damaging the taxi's front grille. The taxi driver has had this replaced and is now hassling my mate for a cheque or postal order for the repair (and being quite aggressive about it). Obviously this is all the van's fault, but should the taxi be claiming directly from the van, or does he have to claim from my mate, who then claims from the van? 
P.S. Cycling mate is insured also.
P.S. Cycling mate is insured also.
anothernameitist said:
Good on your mate been insured.
He needs to go through his insurance, that's what he pays his premium for.
Give van details to insurance .
Seriously? It's a motorbike, do you think motorbikes are normally uninsured. He needs to go through his insurance, that's what he pays his premium for.
Give van details to insurance .
The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.
The motorbike rider should point the taxi driver at the van's insurer and that's it.
snorky782 said:
Seriously? It's a motorbike, do you think motorbikes are normally uninsured.
The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.
The motorbike rider should point the taxi driver at the van's insurer and that's it.
How do you know it was a motorbike? The last statement of the OP suggests it was a bicycle.The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.
The motorbike rider should point the taxi driver at the van's insurer and that's it.
AyBee said:
P.S. Cycling mate is insured also.
Refer taxi driver to his insurance company, that's what they're for.bodhi808 said:
snorky782 said:
Seriously? It's a motorbike, do you think motorbikes are normally uninsured.
The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.
The motorbike rider should point the taxi driver at the van's insurer and that's it.
How do you know it was a motorbike? The last statement of the OP suggests it was a bicycle.The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.
The motorbike rider should point the taxi driver at the van's insurer and that's it.
AyBee said:
P.S. Cycling mate is insured also.
Refer taxi driver to his insurance company, that's what they're for.AyBee said:
A mate of mine was knocked off his bike by a van last week; the van has admitted fault and bike/kit damage will be sorted by the van's insurance, however, he was knocked off into a taxi, damaging the taxi's front grille. The taxi driver has had this replaced and is now hassling my mate for a cheque or postal order for the repair (and being quite aggressive about it). Obviously this is all the van's fault, but should the taxi be claiming directly from the van, or does he have to claim from my mate, who then claims from the van?
P.S. Cycling mate is insured also.
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.P.S. Cycling mate is insured also.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
[quote=TooMany2cvs]
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.[/quote
Total rubbish.
You go to the proximate cause of the accident. Taxi driver goes to van insurer. There is no negligence (presumably, given the admission of liability from the van driver) against the cyclist here,and so the taxi has no cause of action to pursue him in common law. He can point to the negligence of the van, and thus in common law, this is where he claims. The whole basis of a third party claim is that someone failed in their common law duty of care. You seek redress from them for their negligence, and insurance companies exist to provide cover to third parties for the insured's possible future negligent acts.
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.[/quote
Total rubbish.
You go to the proximate cause of the accident. Taxi driver goes to van insurer. There is no negligence (presumably, given the admission of liability from the van driver) against the cyclist here,and so the taxi has no cause of action to pursue him in common law. He can point to the negligence of the van, and thus in common law, this is where he claims. The whole basis of a third party claim is that someone failed in their common law duty of care. You seek redress from them for their negligence, and insurance companies exist to provide cover to third parties for the insured's possible future negligent acts.
TooMany2cvs said:
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
The Taxi cannot claim from the cyclist because the cyclist has not been negligent. Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
Retroman said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
The Taxi cannot claim from the cyclist because the cyclist has not been negligent. Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
Blue Oval84 said:
I was at the front of a four car pile up, caused by the car at the rear. I claimed from the car at the rear. To suggest I would have claimed off the car that hit me is ludicrous.
And so opens up another can of worms. You'd claim off whichever car caused the one behind you to hit you. It might be the car just behind, the car behind that, or the one at the back. It all depends.
snorky782 said:
Blue Oval84 said:
I was at the front of a four car pile up, caused by the car at the rear. I claimed from the car at the rear. To suggest I would have claimed off the car that hit me is ludicrous.
And so opens up another can of worms. You'd claim off whichever car caused the one behind you to hit you. It might be the car just behind, the car behind that, or the one at the back. It all depends.
Jujuuk68 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
Total rubbish.Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
You go to the proximate cause of the accident. Taxi driver goes to van insurer. There is no negligence (presumably, given the admission of liability from the van driver) against the cyclist here,and so the taxi has no cause of action to pursue him in common law. He can point to the negligence of the van, and thus in common law, this is where he claims. The whole basis of a third party claim is that someone failed in their common law duty of care. You seek redress from them for their negligence, and insurance companies exist to provide cover to third parties for the insured's possible future negligent acts.
Edited by GC8 on Friday 6th May 02:41
Blue Oval84 said:
snorky782 said:
Blue Oval84 said:
I was at the front of a four car pile up, caused by the car at the rear. I claimed from the car at the rear. To suggest I would have claimed off the car that hit me is ludicrous.
And so opens up another can of worms. You'd claim off whichever car caused the one behind you to hit you. It might be the car just behind, the car behind that, or the one at the back. It all depends.
Blue Oval84 said:
Retroman said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Yep, that's the way it'd normally work.
Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
The Taxi cannot claim from the cyclist because the cyclist has not been negligent. Van hits bike. Bike claims from van.
Bike hits taxi. Taxi claims from bike who claims from van.
The taxi driver had no involvement with the van. How the van vs bike claim gets settled is not his problem.
Maybe the insurers of the innocent driver that hit you passed the claim on to the correct insurer as a courtesy, or just the easiest way of defending the claim, but unless that driver hit you and was then hit in turn (which is not what happened here) he had no liability.
At worst, innocent drivers might have to deal with their own damage if they have no one to claim from. The law wouldn't treat the driver at the front as a special case and make him deal with two claims (yours and his) just so you can deal with none.
The taxi driver is just the second claimant against the original driver.
At worst, innocent drivers might have to deal with their own damage if they have no one to claim from. The law wouldn't treat the driver at the front as a special case and make him deal with two claims (yours and his) just so you can deal with none.
The taxi driver is just the second claimant against the original driver.
You cannot claim off a third party who has not been negligent. End of story.
(Unless your car gets damaged by a wild animal that has escaped. Even if the owner of the wild animal has not been negligent, say a meteor hits the enclosure and the rhino escapes, the owner is still responsible in law. So unless your car has been damaged by an escaped rhino, or other captive wild animal that has got out, forget it.)
(Unless your car gets damaged by a wild animal that has escaped. Even if the owner of the wild animal has not been negligent, say a meteor hits the enclosure and the rhino escapes, the owner is still responsible in law. So unless your car has been damaged by an escaped rhino, or other captive wild animal that has got out, forget it.)
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 6th May 08:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff