Third Party summoned to court but yet to payout
Discussion
A few years back (2022), I was rear ended whilst stationary at a roundabout waiting in traffic. Non fault accident only myself and third party involved.
Third parties insurance was a bit questionable (traders policy) but got my car fixed through my own insurance company as his insurance didn’t seem too helpful.
Fast forward, 3 years and county court or claims court have demanded that the third party be individually held liable for costs of repair (presumably as the traders policy didn’t cover the circumstances he was in). This is on my claims history as a non-fault claim at present (has been for the past 3 years).
If the insurance company are unable to recover costs, would the liability of the claim switch to myself as they will have been unable to recover costs from the third party?
GolfDragon said:
So if I’m fully comprehensive, insurer takes the loss if they can’t recover their costs?
Yes, but it will be a "fault" accident. A fault accident is an accident where your insurer pay out and don't recover their money. Nothing to do with circumstances. Also, you can have an accident that's your fault but if the tp doesn't end up claiming off you and you don't claim for your own damage, that's a non fault accident. Sebring440 said:
GolfDragon said:
So if I’m fully comprehensive, insurer takes the loss if they can’t recover their costs?
Of course. That's what "insurance" means. Read your policy.
GolfDragon said:
Fast forward, 3 years and county court or claims court have demanded that the third party be individually held liable for costs of repair (presumably as the traders policy didn’t cover the circumstances he was in).
Have your insurers actually said this to you, or have they just issued proceedings against him personally without actually telling you that he was uninsured?If it's the latter then you shouldn't read anything about his insurance status into it. It's quite normal for proceedings to be issued against the at fault driver personally rather than his insurer, even if the expectation is that his insurer will ultimately pay.
Apologies for late reply.
My assumption based on gut instinct suggested that he was most likely uninsured and trying to pull a fast one with his traders policy. The court proceedings I was informed were addressed to the individual (based on the paperwork but as people suggest might have been to the individuals insurer).
I didn’t call the police at the time as it was a minor collision and he seemed quite reasonable initially (provided details etc).
I’ve always had it logged as a non-fault claim when I’ve renewed etc as it was deemed by my insurer at the time of renewal. Weirdly I didn’t even pay my excess for repairs of this claim which I thought they would’ve requested (especially if they weren’t sure they would receive payment).
My assumption based on gut instinct suggested that he was most likely uninsured and trying to pull a fast one with his traders policy. The court proceedings I was informed were addressed to the individual (based on the paperwork but as people suggest might have been to the individuals insurer).
I didn’t call the police at the time as it was a minor collision and he seemed quite reasonable initially (provided details etc).
I’ve always had it logged as a non-fault claim when I’ve renewed etc as it was deemed by my insurer at the time of renewal. Weirdly I didn’t even pay my excess for repairs of this claim which I thought they would’ve requested (especially if they weren’t sure they would receive payment).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff