Cyclist crash advice
Discussion
My brother-in-law is a mechanic who works with my father-in-law at a garage they own. He was out in a customer's car this week when a Polish gentleman on a bicyle came out from between two parked cars and rode straight into the side of the car my BiL was driving. Something in the order of £500 of damage has occurred.
They considered claiming on their trade policy but the excess is £500. My FiL has told my BiL he will have to stand the cost. This is a lot of money to him.
The Polish gentleman admitted fault, but says he has no money and cannot pay for the repair.
Where does my BiL stand? My thought is it is a civil matter (which the police confirmed) and that pursuing him is pointless as he has no money. I wondered if any of you had any advice?
They considered claiming on their trade policy but the excess is £500. My FiL has told my BiL he will have to stand the cost. This is a lot of money to him.
The Polish gentleman admitted fault, but says he has no money and cannot pay for the repair.
Where does my BiL stand? My thought is it is a civil matter (which the police confirmed) and that pursuing him is pointless as he has no money. I wondered if any of you had any advice?
I don't see how your FIL can enforce the recovery of the excess to your BIL - even if it was in his contract, the decision of what level of excess the business carries is not the choice of your BIL, it is a choice of the business.
Otherwise, what is the limit? Suppose, in the extreme, you FIL chose a £10,000 excess to lower his insurance costs - would that be reasonable to land with the employee? No.
I'm guessing he doesn't have a formal contract with terms detailed in event of an accident (few companies do).
My advice (not a lawyer) is that the BIL should point out the above and point out it is a business loss, not a personal issue, as he was on company business so it's the business that should insure employees appropriately.
Tricky though with family.
Otherwise, what is the limit? Suppose, in the extreme, you FIL chose a £10,000 excess to lower his insurance costs - would that be reasonable to land with the employee? No.
I'm guessing he doesn't have a formal contract with terms detailed in event of an accident (few companies do).
My advice (not a lawyer) is that the BIL should point out the above and point out it is a business loss, not a personal issue, as he was on company business so it's the business that should insure employees appropriately.
Tricky though with family.
I'd still pursue the cyclist. Plenty of people say they have no money yet sleep on very bumpy mattresses.
The company should also be doing this not the individual. It's a company iissue and the cost of either the excess or the cost of pursuing should come from them as if all else fails its a genuine business cost reducing tax.
The company should also be doing this not the individual. It's a company iissue and the cost of either the excess or the cost of pursuing should come from them as if all else fails its a genuine business cost reducing tax.
Retroman said:
For the sake of about £15 a year, this is why i have third party cover when cycling.
If you inadvertently step out in front of a car and cave it's bonnet and windscreen in, do you have cover for that?In every claim between motorists I'd suggest the innocent party ends up out of pocket.
If it's a trade policy, I think they'd be mad to use their own insurance company. Come renewal time they'll have to mention this every year.
If they have the name and address of the cyclist, then pursue him through the small claims court or similar, but I definitely wouldn't involve my insurance.
If the BIL borrowed a car to go pick up his lunch or to hoon around in for the afternoon while he was bored, then he should pay the £500. If he was genuinely on company business then there is no way he should be paying it.
Depending on how much he needs the job / how much of a dick the FIL is, he might need to pay some/all of it though. If I was forced to pay it I'd probably insist on not doing any further road testing or car pickups though.
Depending on how much he needs the job / how much of a dick the FIL is, he might need to pay some/all of it though. If I was forced to pay it I'd probably insist on not doing any further road testing or car pickups though.
Nickyboy said:
This is why the insurance industry needs to change and cover needs to include other modes of transportation that you may use/have.
My Dads cover in the US means he can drive any type of vehicle on the road and has 3rd party cover to do so, golf carts, tractor mowers, bikes etc
Why do they need to change? If you buy home insurance then you'll have around £10m in public liability insurance. Anyone can buy any cover they want now. The thing that needs to change is people buying it through choice, without being compelled to do so. My Dads cover in the US means he can drive any type of vehicle on the road and has 3rd party cover to do so, golf carts, tractor mowers, bikes etc
Oh and kids under 16 can't be compelled to buy insurance, as they aren't legally responsible for many of their actions.
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 5th June 10:26
Crossflow Kid said:
Vaud said:
KFC said:
A pole, riding a poverty chariot.
Elitist and racist in 6 words. Quite an achievement, at least your English teacher will be proud.6 words and very bemused that people think profiled as a pole was a joke. I somehow doubt it was a reference to the person being tall and thin.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff