Hit by insured car / uninsured driver

[Scrump]

Rusty_ said:

Arghhh, I hate how it doesn't let you amend the thread title. It meant to say 'Hit by insured car / uninsured driver'...

It does

[QJumper]

I thought it's driver of the car that's insured, and not the car.

Hard to see the third party insurer wanting to pay out on a driver they wouldn't insure, or penalising the insured, who wasn't driving.

You might have to rely on your own policy's uninsured driver provisions, and whether they protect your no claims bonus for it.

[sixor8]

It was his partner's car, so not the same as Joe Bloggs driving his mate's car uninsured, I'd have thought.

On threads on here about not cancelling insurance policies after selling a car due to high 'cancellation' fees, just letting them expire, several posters suggested that leaving a live policy on a car could lead to liability. Since there IS a policy on the car, I'm sure the TPI are obliged to pay out to compensate you (or your insurer if you've claimed) but will not cover any damage at all for the car being driven, even if it was a FC policy. If the policyholder swears blind he must have taken the car without permission, then TWOC too.

[Aretnap]

QJumper said:

I thought it's driver of the car that's insured, and not the car.

Hard to see the third party insurer wanting to pay out on a driver they wouldn't insure, or penalising the insured, who wasn't driving.

You might have to rely on your own policies uninsured driver provisions, and whether they protect your no claims bonus for it.

This is incorrect. Provided the driver of the car has been identified (sounds like he has been) the Road Traffic Act requires the car's insurer to deal with the third party aspects of the claim as if he was named on the policy.

It doesn't get the driver of a charge of driving without insurance, but it's part of a number of measures in place to protect victims of uninsured drivers. The very rough principle is that the insurer with the nearest connection to the car pays for the claim, unless the car has no insurance whatsoever in which case the Motor Insurers Bureau pays out of central funds.

If the driver cannot be identified then things work a bit differently. The car's insurer still deals with the claim, but under MIB rules which in practice means that you can't claim from the third party insurer for anything which is covered by your own (comprehensive) insurance policy.

[QJumper]

Aretnap said:

This is incorrect. Provided the driver of the car has been identified (sounds like he has been) the Road Traffic Act requires the car's insurer to deal with the third party aspects of the claim as if he was named on the policy.

It doesn't get the driver of a charge of driving without insurance, but it's part of a number of measures in place to protect victims of uninsured drivers. The very rough principle is that the insurer with the nearest connection to the car pays for the claim, unless the car has no insurance whatsoever in which case the Motor Insurers Bureau pays out of central funds.

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. As a matter of interest then, what happens when a car is stolen/taken without consent? Is the owners insurance liable for any third party damage?

[Aretnap]

QJumper said:

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. As a matter of interest then, what happens when a car is stolen/taken without consent? Is the owners insurance liable for any third party damage?

Yes, it covers theft/TWOC situations as well, assuming the thief doesn't scarper from the scene before he can be identified. The main difference is that in a theft scenario the insurance company can't come after the policyholder for anything they have to pay out to third parties - whereas if you allow someone to drive your car without insurance they can demand that you pay them back.

The question of what that does to the policyholders no claims discount etc occasionally comes up. In most cases it's academic as you'll be making a theft claim anyway if someone steals your car and crashes it, and the third party payout just gets rolled up into the theft claim. I do seem to remember seeing a couple of Financial Ombudsman decisions to the effect that where there's no theft claim (eg because damage to the stolen car was minimal, or the stolen car was very low value) then the insurer shouldn't penalise the policyholder because of the sum they've paid out to the third party. The logic being that it's not actually a claim on the policy, it's the insurer's statutory duty which is separate from the terms of the policym

[Silvanus]

Happened to me last year, a Transit drove into the back of me whilst I was in a queue. Turned out the wagon was insured but the driver was not, nor did he have a licence. In the end insurer of the Transit paid out and I didn't incur any costs police were involved but did not pursue the driver, despite a load of evidence being collected by me. Think it might have been to do with where the driver lived.

[QJumper]

Aretnap said:

Yes, it covers theft/TWOC situations as well, assuming the thief doesn't scarper from the scene before he can be identified. The main difference is that in a theft scenario the insurance company can't come after the policyholder for anything they have to pay out to third parties - whereas if you allow someone to drive your car without insurance they can demand that you pay them back.

The question of what that does to the policyholders no claims discount etc occasionally comes up. In most cases it's academic as you'll be making a theft claim anyway if someone steals your car and crashes it, and the third party payout just gets rolled up into the theft claim. I do seem to remember seeing a couple of Financial Ombudsman decisions to the effect that where there's no theft claim (eg because damage to the stolen car was minimal, or the stolen car was very low value) then the insurer shouldn't penalise the policyholder because of the sum they've paid out to the third party. The logic being that it's not actually a claim on the policy, it's the insurer's statutory duty which is separate from the terms of the policym

Thanks again, that makes sense.

[Sebring440]

Rusty_ said:

However, it sounds like the claim will be dealt with by the TPI (hopefully!).

Are you not insured yourself then?

[Bennet]

Rusty_ said:

I'm insured. I don't want to claim on my policy.

Presumably if you were to put things into motion with your own insurer, they'll soon discover that there is a liable third party insurer and bill them. Presumably....

[Dieci]

Silvanus said:

Happened to me last year, a Transit drove into the back of me whilst I was in a queue. Turned out the wagon was insured but the driver was not, nor did he have a licence. In the end insurer of the Transit paid out and I didn't incur any costs police were involved but did not pursue the driver, despite a load of evidence being collected by me. Think it might have been to do with where the driver lived.

Wild guess ,a place with lots of caravans ?

[Daytonagrey]

Bennet said:

Presumably if you were to put things into motion with your own insurer, they'll soon discover that there is a liable third party insurer and bill them. Presumably....

Who'd of thought it🙄

[Rusty_]

Bennet said:

Rusty_ said:

I'm insured. I don't want to claim on my policy.

Presumably if you were to put things into motion with your own insurer, they'll soon discover that there is a liable third party insurer and bill them. Presumably....

Already done. I wasn't asking about how to lodge a claim, I was hoping to seek the opinions of those who may have experience in claims and likely outcomes.