Hire car after crash where liability is likely to be dispute

[JQ]

My son crashed his car last night - car on his inside he was overtaking tried to change lanes without checking it was clear first. The other car was a taxi who they tried to leave the scene. Taxi has little damage but sons car is written off. No independent witnesses were secured and after spending too long on PH I'm acutely aware that the Taxi driver's version of events is likely to differ from reality once the insurance co.'s get involved.

However, son has received a call from Enterprise this morning offering him a hire car - presumably they got details from the company who got his car off the motorway. But I'm confused, I always thought hire cars from ACM's were only offered when liability was not disputed and being able to reclaim the costs was almost guaranteed. Son's insurance does not offer a hire car, he's 18 and a new driver. For now he's refused the hire car on my say so, but what happens if he takes the hire car and is found at fault - it will be taxi driver's word against his, so it's a definite possibility. Would he be liable for the hire car cost?

[Aretnap]

JQ said:

what happens if he takes the hire car and is found at fault - it will be taxi driver's word against his, so it's a definite possibility. Would he be liable for the hire car cost?

No. The credit hire company takes on that risk after they've made their own judgement about the likelihood of your son being found at fault. If they think the risk is too high, they won't offer him a credit hire car.

The only reasons why your son might end up personally liable for the costs would be if he actively misled the credit hire company about the circumstances if the accident, or if he didn't cooperate with them when it came to claiming from the third party (eg if he refused to give his side if the story in court, in the fairly unlikely event that it actually got as far as court).

[JQ]

Aretnap said:

JQ said:

what happens if he takes the hire car and is found at fault - it will be taxi driver's word against his, so it's a definite possibility. Would he be liable for the hire car cost?

No. The credit hire company takes on that risk after they've made their own judgement about the likelihood of your son being found at fault. If they think the risk is too high, they won't offer him a credit hire car.

The only reasons why your son might end up personally liable for the costs would be if he actively misled the credit hire company about the circumstances if the accident, or if he didn't cooperate with them when it came to claiming from the third party (eg if he refused to give his side if the story in court, in the fairly unlikely event that it actually got as far as court).

Thank you, that's really helpful.

[SydneyBridge]

Either way, you should only be entitled to a hire car until the write off settlement is agreed

I had a similar crash with an off duty taxi driver, he was prosecuted and denied liability until a week before the Trial. I avoided his carbur wrote my car off...

Edited by SydneyBridge on Monday 26th October 11:11

[JQ]

Transpires it was all irrelevant anyway - after spending an hour on the phone to them they then confirmed that they would only provide the hire car once the other party has fully admitted liability, which I suspect is not going to happen any time soon.

Just gutted for my son as this is going to cost him a fortune (to him) and it genuinely wasn't his fault.

[Mr Tidy]

It might be worth checking if he has any cover for a courtesy car on his own policy as most provide it. Although if the car is a write off they don't provide one for long.

[KungFuPanda]

First post advises son’s policy doesn’t provide for a courtesy car.

[Sheepshanks]

JQ said:

Transpires it was all irrelevant anyway - after spending an hour on the phone to them they then confirmed that they would only provide the hire car once the other party has fully admitted liability, which I suspect is not going to happen any time soon.

I haven't heard of it being quite that strong before. I wonder if Enterprise were acting off their own bat - normally the referal it from an AMC who you either contact directly or who is referred by your own insurer.

In those cases they just seem to go off the information presented and you have to confirm that you're not lying. The AMC takes a chance then, I think sometimes underwritten by their own insurance.

[JQ]

Sheepshanks said:

JQ said:

Transpires it was all irrelevant anyway - after spending an hour on the phone to them they then confirmed that they would only provide the hire car once the other party has fully admitted liability, which I suspect is not going to happen any time soon.

I haven't heard of it being quite that strong before. I wonder if Enterprise were acting off their own bat - normally the referal it from an AMC who you either contact directly or who is referred by your own insurer.

In those cases they just seem to go off the information presented and you have to confirm that you're not lying. The AMC takes a chance then, I think sometimes underwritten by their own insurance.

It transpires it was a referral from his insurer. I'll be honest, I'm not surprised. With no independent witnesses, I have no doubt that the taxi moving into my sons lane will magically become my son moving into his lane. However, I would love to be proved wrong. The damage supports my sons claim, in that it looks like the taxi was on full lock at the point of impact and most of the damage to my sons car was caused by him hitting the front drivers wheel, with very little damage to the taxi, but I don't know how much reliance can be placed on that to apportion blame.

[Yellow Lizud]

JQ said:

but I don't know how much reliance can be placed on a teenagers version to apportion blame.

FTFY

Sorry to be so negative but when has a teenager ever told their parents the truth over anything!

Sounds like it was good that nothing came of the hire car offered.

[numtumfutunch]

if you are feeling paranoid I have a suggestion

I was involved in a slam dunk no fault claim a couple of years ago - I was hit from behind and the other driver immediately accepted liability

Even before I got home his insurer was on the phone offering me a contract hire car as did BMW UK when I phoned them to arrange a quote for repairs

My BMW dealer said the repair was easy and they would have me back in the car within 2 weeks

I expressed my own paranoia to the bodyshop manager over credit hire - I was being offered a new 5 series at a frankly ridiculous price - and he suggested I call the other parties insurance and negotiate a reasonable sum for Ubers and trains for a couple of weeks instead

I went for a few hundred quid, they accepted immediately on the phone and so I wish Id gone for more
It was easily less than the absurd price a new 5 series would have cost them for a fortnight hence their eagerness

Cheers

[stemll]

JQ said:

It transpires it was a referral from his insurer. I'll be honest, I'm not surprised. With no independent witnesses, I have no doubt that the taxi moving into my sons lane will magically become my son moving into his lane. However, I would love to be proved wrong. The damage supports my sons claim, in that it looks like the taxi was on full lock at the point of impact and most of the damage to my sons car was caused by him hitting the front drivers wheel, with very little damage to the taxi, but I don't know how much reliance can be placed on that to apportion blame.

Taxi on full lock but your son's car was recovered from the motorway (in the first post). Who is going to be on full lock on a motorway, even a taxi driver?

[OzzyR1]

JQ said:

My son crashed his car last night - car on his inside he was overtaking tried to change lanes without checking it was clear first.

JQ said:

presumably they got details from the company who got his car off the motorway

JQ said:

With no independent witnesses... the damage supports my sons claim, in that it looks like the taxi was on full lock at the point of impact and most of the damage to my sons car was caused by him hitting the front drivers wheel, with very little damage to the taxi

You say this happened on a motorway so assume minimum speeds for both vehicles 50mph?

Unless the taxi driver was a maniac, it is highly unlikely that he would have applied full-lock to change lanes even at 50mph.

If your son was overtaking (the taxi was on his inside), then if it swerved into his lane it would have made contact with the front passenger side wheel not the front driver side wheel as you state?

Apologies if it transpires that your son's commentary is accurate but suspect he is not telling you the whole truth.

I did the same when I was a kid - said I aquaplaned on standing water when I was being a dick, driving too fast for the conditions and went through a fence.
My dad saw straight through it

Edited by OzzyR1 on Wednesday 28th October 01:34

[JQ]

stemll said:

JQ said:

It transpires it was a referral from his insurer. I'll be honest, I'm not surprised. With no independent witnesses, I have no doubt that the taxi moving into my sons lane will magically become my son moving into his lane. However, I would love to be proved wrong. The damage supports my sons claim, in that it looks like the taxi was on full lock at the point of impact and most of the damage to my sons car was caused by him hitting the front drivers wheel, with very little damage to the taxi, but I don't know how much reliance can be placed on that to apportion blame.

Taxi on full lock but your son's car was recovered from the motorway (in the first post). Who is going to be on full lock on a motorway, even a taxi driver?

Taxi was stationary in a queue to exit the motorway. I assume he made a last minute dart to jump the queue without looking. Perhaps not full lock, but from the damage to both cars my son definitely hit his wheel.

However, great news Taxi driver has admitted liability, I still don’t quite believe it, but hire car is due to arrive today or tomorrow. I’m fully aware of how long these things normally take, but Enterprise were quite aggressive in chasing the driver directly as I guess they really want their hire fees and he’s admitted to them directly hence they’re happy to provide a car.

I’m still not 100% relieved as sons insurance co have not had formal confirmation from taxi insurance co, but Enterprise have confirmed to my sons insurance co of the admission which they presumably have on tape. Son’s insurance co are currently valuing the car and we’ll have an offer for settlement in the next 5 days. Payout will still be less his excess until taxi drivers insurance co. Admit liability but it’s looking far more hopeful that he will get that back. Plus insurance co have said they’ll keep his policy running if he gets a new car within 30 days of the payout. Again I assume they wouldn’t do this if they thought son was going to be found at fault.

All in all, very happy we were contacted by Enterprise as I doubt things would have moved so quickly without their involvement.

[JQ]

OzzyR1 said:

JQ said:

My son crashed his car last night - car on his inside he was overtaking tried to change lanes without checking it was clear first.

JQ said:

presumably they got details from the company who got his car off the motorway

JQ said:

With no independent witnesses... the damage supports my sons claim, in that it looks like the taxi was on full lock at the point of impact and most of the damage to my sons car was caused by him hitting the front drivers wheel, with very little damage to the taxi

You say this happened on a motorway so assume minimum speeds for both vehicles 50mph?

Unless the taxi driver was a maniac, it is highly unlikely that he would have applied full-lock to change lanes even at 50mph.

If your son was overtaking (the taxi was on his inside), then if it swerved into his lane it would have made contact with the front passenger side wheel not the front driver side wheel as you state?

Apologies if it transpires that your son's commentary is accurate but suspect he is not telling you the whole truth.

I did the same when I was a kid - said I aquaplaned on standing water when I was being a dick, driving too fast for the conditions and went through a fence.
My dad saw straight through it

Edited by OzzyR1 on Wednesday 28th October 01:34

Taxi was stationary, sons passenger front bumper, wing and wheel hit the taxi drivers front drivers wheel with no impact damage to taxi bodywork, just a slight graze on the drivers door.

I get everyone’s comments about honesty from an 18 year old - I had no idea how I snapped my fathers handbrake cable at a similar age, definitely not handbrake turns in a car park. And I had a big crash at 18 and didn’t tell my dad the truth until I was 30 - I was prosecuted and we had to employ a solicitor. So yeah, he could be telling porkies but all the damage accords to his explanation and with the taxi driver now admitting liability I pretty happy he’s been honest.

[JQ]

Next insurance query with it now looking like it will be a no-fault claim -

Son was diagnosed with a pretty horrible degenerative bone disease in his spine 18 months ago. Only discovered as he broke his neck in 3 places innocuously lifting some weights. He’s at very high risk of doing the same again and as such has had to quit all the sports he was doing and completely change his lifestyle. Hence he’s a lot less of a knob than I was at 18 as he’s very aware of his own mortality. He’s had dozens of MRI’s and we’re currently awaiting another full body scan, having had a bone biopsy a few weeks ago.

He’s not been injured in the crash, but the reality is he’s in constant discomfort / pain and got used to it. The crash “may” have done damage he’s not aware of. Should we be flagging this with insurers as we won’t know about extra damage until he has the next scan - results may not be available until 8 weeks time. I’m not even sure it’s a bone scan as they’re now investigating lumps and bumps in his lymphatic system. But we could request a bone scan if needed.

[Collectingbrass]

JQ said:

Next insurance query with it now looking like it will be a no-fault claim -

Son was diagnosed with a pretty horrible degenerative bone disease in his spine 18 months ago. Only discovered as he broke his neck in 3 places innocuously lifting some weights. He s at very high risk of doing the same again and as such has had to quit all the sports he was doing and completely change his lifestyle. Hence he s a lot less of a knob than I was at 18 as he s very aware of his own mortality. He s had dozens of MRI s and we re currently awaiting another full body scan, having had a bone biopsy a few weeks ago.

He s not been injured in the crash, but the reality is he s in constant discomfort / pain and got used to it. The crash may have done damage he s not aware of. Should we be flagging this with insurers as we won t know about extra damage until he has the next scan - results may not be available until 8 weeks time. I m not even sure it s a bone scan as they re now investigating lumps and bumps in his lymphatic system. But we could request a bone scan if needed.

Yes absolutely, and don't mess around with getting it checked out

[JQ]

Collectingbrass said:

JQ said:

Next insurance query with it now looking like it will be a no-fault claim -

Son was diagnosed with a pretty horrible degenerative bone disease in his spine 18 months ago. Only discovered as he broke his neck in 3 places innocuously lifting some weights. He s at very high risk of doing the same again and as such has had to quit all the sports he was doing and completely change his lifestyle. Hence he s a lot less of a knob than I was at 18 as he s very aware of his own mortality. He s had dozens of MRI s and we re currently awaiting another full body scan, having had a bone biopsy a few weeks ago.

He s not been injured in the crash, but the reality is he s in constant discomfort / pain and got used to it. The crash may have done damage he s not aware of. Should we be flagging this with insurers as we won t know about extra damage until he has the next scan - results may not be available until 8 weeks time. I m not even sure it s a bone scan as they re now investigating lumps and bumps in his lymphatic system. But we could request a bone scan if needed.

Yes absolutely, and don't mess around with getting it checked out

After writing all that down I realised how stupid we’ve been. Have contacted his doctors to get advice on what they want us to do.