Bizarre Insurance Incident
Discussion
Just had a call from a friend who was hit by a driver a few years ago.
They claimed on the other driver's insurance, who accepted liability and the other party's insurance paid out.
Fast forward a few years and a letter has arrived asking for the claimed amount to be paid back to the insurance company as the third party policy has now been voided.
A few things-
My friend wasn't at fault
The insurance company admitted liability by paying out in the first place
Surely they should pursue their client if the issue was caused by their policy being voided
Does this sound right? They are claiming something to do with Section 152 of the RTA.
They claimed on the other driver's insurance, who accepted liability and the other party's insurance paid out.
Fast forward a few years and a letter has arrived asking for the claimed amount to be paid back to the insurance company as the third party policy has now been voided.
A few things-
My friend wasn't at fault
The insurance company admitted liability by paying out in the first place
Surely they should pursue their client if the issue was caused by their policy being voided
Does this sound right? They are claiming something to do with Section 152 of the RTA.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=173...
Suggests they cant claim that anyway
Though as you suggest they paid out, its between them and their insured, surely
Suggests they cant claim that anyway
Though as you suggest they paid out, its between them and their insured, surely
I believe insurance companies can sometimes not establish liability,
but will pay for your damage on the basis that they can claim back from you if new evidence comes to light.
Can't remember what the term for it is.
eg their insured can't be reached, they pay out, then their insured comes back with their version or in-car etc.
but will pay for your damage on the basis that they can claim back from you if new evidence comes to light.
Can't remember what the term for it is.
eg their insured can't be reached, they pay out, then their insured comes back with their version or in-car etc.
OP. Read the relevant section of the Act and see if it applies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
I would doubt it, but ….
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
I would doubt it, but ….
freedman said:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=173...
Suggests they cant claim that anyway
Though as you suggest they paid out, its between them and their insured, surely
There are some clauses in that section of the Road Traffic Act (3 and 4) that have been removed (notes F14). Perhaps that has been adjusted following the quoted adjudication?Suggests they cant claim that anyway
Though as you suggest they paid out, its between them and their insured, surely
freedman said:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=173...
Suggests they cant claim that anyway
Though as you suggest they paid out, its between them and their insured, surely
Thanks, I'll pass this on!Suggests they cant claim that anyway
Though as you suggest they paid out, its between them and their insured, surely
freedman said:
That is an unbelievable decision by the court.Mr Colley gets into a car where he knows the driver did not hold a valid licence and knows he was uninsured.
Mr Colley is then injured when the driver crashes due to "dangerous driving".
Mr Colley then demands that all of us pay higher insurance premiums in order to pay him for his injuries that occurred due to his own stupidity!
The law is really is a total and utter ass!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff