Hit by a stolen car!

[blackworm]

Hi people,wonder if anyone in the know can give me some advice?

The mother in-law was sat in traffic when a car being chased by the rozzers hit her and wrote her car off,the police caught the driver of the stolen car!
She was pretty shock up,sore leg,shoulder and neck but nothing major(was took to hospital straight away)...

What I want to know is...who does she claim off and what are her best options?

Cheers😊

[anonymous-user]

She needs to find out if the car had an insurance policy in force to start with.

[LosingGrip]

If the stolen car had insurance, that insurance company will payout.

If they don't your mother's insurance will have to pay out if fully comp (not sure if that will cover any injuries though). If she isn't fully comp there is the motor insurance bureau that may be able to assist.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If you're hit by a stolen car and the thief is caught, the insurers of the stolen car pay out, even though the driver wasn't covered to drive. And the owner of the stolen car has the claim on their record, and may lose their ncb, even though they did nothing wrong.

If the thief isn't caught, you claim off your own insurance, and have the claim on your record and maybe lose your ncb, or you can claim off the MIB, but only if you don't have comp cover.

Scenario one applies in this case.

[Aretnap]

LosingGrip said:

If they don't your mother's insurance will have to pay out if fully comp (not sure if that will cover any injuries though). If she isn't fully comp there is the motor insurance bureau that may be able to assist.

Comprehensive policy will not pay out for her own injuries (in some cases it might pay a small, token amount for very serious injuries). However anything which is not covered by her own policy (eg injuries, property within the car not covered on any other policy) could still be claimed from the MIB. This doesn't apply of course as the third was caught so the claim can be made via the other cars insurers.

[Aretnap]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you're hit by a stolen car and the thief is caught, the insurers of the stolen car pay out, even though the driver wasn't covered to drive. And the owner of the stolen car has the claim on their record, and may lose their ncb, even though they did nothing wrong.

In most cases of course the owner of the stolen car will be making a claim for theft anyway, as his car has been stolen and smashed to pieces. So the effect of the extra third party payout on his record is fairly moot.

ISTR a couple of Ombudsman decisions to the effect that when the insurer is not paying out under the terms of the policy, but because they're required to pay by the RTA, it should not be treated as a claim on the policy (because it isn't), and so the NCD should be unaffected. Assuming I'm remembering correctly there should not really be any effect on the owner's NCD in the cases where he doesn't make a claim himself, eg because his own car wasn't damaged, or because he was TPO.

[OddCat]

There appear to be three variables here:

1. was the thief caught yes / no
2. was the stolen car insured yes / no
3. did the innocent party have fully comp insurance yes / no

Which I think is six possible combinations.....

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

I don't understand what difference it makes as to whether the thief was caught or not? A stolen car that is insured remains exactly that even if the thief is/isn't apprehended.

[paradigital]

OddCat said:

There appear to be three variables here:

1. was the thief caught yes / no
2. was the stolen car insured yes / no
3. did the innocent party have fully comp insurance yes / no

Which I think is six possible combinations.....

8 possible combinations.

[Lonely]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you're hit by a stolen car and the thief is caught, the insurers of the stolen car pay out, even though the driver wasn't covered to drive. And the owner of the stolen car has the claim on their record, and may lose their ncb, even though they did nothing wrong.

If the thief isn't caught, you claim off your own insurance, and have the claim on your record and maybe lose your ncb, or you can claim off the MIB, but only if you don't have comp cover.

Scenario one applies in this case.

Why does it make a difference if the thief is caught - as you say, the driver won't be covered anyway? Is it some sort of agreement between insurers?

[Aretnap]

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I don't understand what difference it makes as to whether the thief was caught or not? A stolen car that is insured remains exactly that even if the thief is/isn't apprehended.

Basically because the mechanism for requiring the insurer to pay out requires you to get a court judgement against the driver. You sue the driver, and if you win the case, Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act says that the insurer has to pay any sum awarded against the driver, whether or not the driver was actually covered by the policy.

In practice of course if liability is clear cut the insurer will usually settle without the need for a court case - but if they don't then the way to force them to settle is to issue the claim against the driver.

Now, you can only take the driver to court if you know who he is - you can't sue an anonymous shadow who disappeared into the night. So if you can't prove who the driver was (at least on the balance of probabilities) then the insurer won't have any obligation to pay under s151 of the RTA.

That would leave you a bit stuffed if you're hit by a stolen car and the driver successfully does a runner, so to ensure blameless people aren't left with severe losses the MIB will handle these cases under the Untraced Drivers Agreement. However as the MIB is an insurer of last resort it is a bit more restrictive in terms of what you can claim for; for example you can't claim for damage to your own car which is covered by your own insurance policy. Basically its there to ensure that people who are seriously injured by uninsured drivers are not left destitute if they're unable to work - not to make sure that they keep their no claims bonuses.

[Mikebentley]

12 yrs ago I parked my car and it was hit by another car that was racing a second vehicle from a nearby fast food outlet whilst they were delivering pizzas. It bounced off my car and destroyed a family run butchers shop. This was Oct and it took six months to resolve. The driver ran off but later handed himself in. I was there when it happened ( the accident and the handing in). It was not the driver who came forward.

Fast forward six months and a total claim of approx. £250k including a 3 week car hire bill of £3500.00 and the responsible parties insurance refused to pay out as he wasn’t covered for business use (delivering pizza). I was in turn being threatened with legal action by Enterprise for the cost of rental.

I advised my insurers initials DL that I believed I was covered for “ uninsured vehicles/drivers” as this is what they like to advertise........I was placed on hold and then they agreed. A no fault claim was registered.

Slightly different to original post but this is something I insist on at renewal as so many can’t be bothered to insure or fake identity’s out there.

[TooLateForAName]

paradigital said:

OddCat said:

There appear to be three variables here:

1. was the thief caught yes / no
2. was the stolen car insured yes / no
3. did the innocent party have fully comp insurance yes / no

Which I think is six possible combinations.....

8 possible combinations.

Which doesn't matter because its not a matrix but a decision tree.

[Lonely]

Aretnap said:

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I don't understand what difference it makes as to whether the thief was caught or not? A stolen car that is insured remains exactly that even if the thief is/isn't apprehended.

Basically because the mechanism for requiring the insurer to pay out requires you to get a court judgement against the driver. You sue the driver, and if you win the case, Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act says that the insurer has to pay any sum awarded against the driver, whether or not the driver was actually covered by the policy.

In practice of course if liability is clear cut the insurer will usually settle without the need for a court case - but if they don't then the way to force them to settle is to issue the claim against the driver.

Now, you can only take the driver to court if you know who he is - you can't sue an anonymous shadow who disappeared into the night. So if you can't prove who the driver was (at least on the balance of probabilities) then the insurer won't have any obligation to pay under s151 of the RTA.

That would leave you a bit stuffed if you're hit by a stolen car and the driver successfully does a runner, so to ensure blameless people aren't left with severe losses the MIB will handle these cases under the Untraced Drivers Agreement. However as the MIB is an insurer of last resort it is a bit more restrictive in terms of what you can claim for; for example you can't claim for damage to your own car which is covered by your own insurance policy. Basically its there to ensure that people who are seriously injured by uninsured drivers are not left destitute if they're unable to work - not to make sure that they keep their no claims bonuses.

A very comprehensive answer. Much appreciated!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I don't understand what difference it makes as to whether the thief was caught or not? A stolen car that is insured remains exactly that even if the thief is/isn't apprehended.

Basically because the mechanism for requiring the insurer to pay out requires you to get a court judgement against the driver. You sue the driver, and if you win the case, Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act says that the insurer has to pay any sum awarded against the driver, whether or not the driver was actually covered by the policy.

In practice of course if liability is clear cut the insurer will usually settle without the need for a court case - but if they don't then the way to force them to settle is to issue the claim against the driver.

Now, you can only take the driver to court if you know who he is - you can't sue an anonymous shadow who disappeared into the night. So if you can't prove who the driver was (at least on the balance of probabilities) then the insurer won't have any obligation to pay under s151 of the RTA.

That would leave you a bit stuffed if you're hit by a stolen car and the driver successfully does a runner, so to ensure blameless people aren't left with severe losses the MIB will handle these cases under the Untraced Drivers Agreement. However as the MIB is an insurer of last resort it is a bit more restrictive in terms of what you can claim for; for example you can't claim for damage to your own car which is covered by your own insurance policy. Basically its there to ensure that people who are seriously injured by uninsured drivers are not left destitute if they're unable to work - not to make sure that they keep their no claims bonuses.

Beat me to it.

[blackworm]

Guy thanks very much for your time👍Much appreciated.
We found out two days ago that the car wasn’t stolen,it was being pursued by the rozzers,the driver was insured and it was also insured by someone else and another company!!!...apparently it’s going to take some time🤦🏻‍♂️

[BertBert]

According to twigthewonderkid(?) who posts on here, sorting out insurance claims when there are two policies in place is straightforward. Be interesting to hear how it happens in practice
Bert

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

According to twigthewonderkid(?) who posts on here, sorting out insurance claims when there are two policies in place is straightforward. Be interesting to hear how it happens in practice
Bert

If I'm reading it right, the driver had insurance, and there's another policy in place via someone else (maybe a previous owner who failed to cancel their policy?). It should be the driver's insurance that responds to the tp claim.

[blackworm]

Or could it be that someone wanted to borrow the car and insured it through there broker?