3rd Party Insurance liability
Discussion
A very good friend of mine has had an unfortunate set of circumstances occur this weekend. Her 15 year old t
t of a child decided on Saturday night to take her car keys from the kitchen, move her car off of her drive, and proceeded to drive it down the road and crash into a parked car. It is likely her car is written off.
To give some more details on this. After she found the car when she went to use on Sunday, her son then admitted to her he took the car, and he said he was driving. She immediately called the police who arrived to take a statement etc. The son has still to date not been found, as he knows his mum called the police, and knows the police are looking for him. She doubts it was him driving (suspecting a "friend"), however has no doubt he was involved. The police currently have the vehicle for forensics to see if they can determine who was in the car, and who was actually driving.
Whilst the police were at the scene, an angry neighbour turned up and started demanding insurance details from my friend. It appears it was his car that was hit. She understands his frustration, he is another innocent party in this, and after the police calmed him down, she handed over her insurance details. I have no knowledge of what this car was or how damaged it was.
I know that as she works for her father, she was driving on her fathers insurance trade policy. I don't know any more details other than this.
She suspected there may be some terms in the insurance stating that her car is not covered under the insurance, due to the car being taken by another family member, and keys taken from house etc. However I am not sure how this works if the person removes the vehicle is a youth, with no licence etc? However the bigger concern she has is that on speaking to insurance company they are stating that not only is her car not covered (due to family member taking), but they also will not cover the damage to the other vehicle.
I appreciate without seeing the policy wording, anyone responding here is probably guessing as much as I am on what will happen next. However I was always of the opinion that the Third Party insurance should protect the third party interests here, even if she cannot recover for her own damages. Anyone got any thoughts?
(trust me string him up has already been offered, and being considered!).
t of a child decided on Saturday night to take her car keys from the kitchen, move her car off of her drive, and proceeded to drive it down the road and crash into a parked car. It is likely her car is written off.To give some more details on this. After she found the car when she went to use on Sunday, her son then admitted to her he took the car, and he said he was driving. She immediately called the police who arrived to take a statement etc. The son has still to date not been found, as he knows his mum called the police, and knows the police are looking for him. She doubts it was him driving (suspecting a "friend"), however has no doubt he was involved. The police currently have the vehicle for forensics to see if they can determine who was in the car, and who was actually driving.
Whilst the police were at the scene, an angry neighbour turned up and started demanding insurance details from my friend. It appears it was his car that was hit. She understands his frustration, he is another innocent party in this, and after the police calmed him down, she handed over her insurance details. I have no knowledge of what this car was or how damaged it was.
I know that as she works for her father, she was driving on her fathers insurance trade policy. I don't know any more details other than this.
She suspected there may be some terms in the insurance stating that her car is not covered under the insurance, due to the car being taken by another family member, and keys taken from house etc. However I am not sure how this works if the person removes the vehicle is a youth, with no licence etc? However the bigger concern she has is that on speaking to insurance company they are stating that not only is her car not covered (due to family member taking), but they also will not cover the damage to the other vehicle.
I appreciate without seeing the policy wording, anyone responding here is probably guessing as much as I am on what will happen next. However I was always of the opinion that the Third Party insurance should protect the third party interests here, even if she cannot recover for her own damages. Anyone got any thoughts?
(trust me string him up has already been offered, and being considered!).
Edited by Fats25 on Monday 20th July 11:45
Ganglandboss said:
What's the deal with the 'insurance trade policy'? Is this a fleet policy? Who owns your friend's car?
I believe it is owned by the company. I'm not clued up on the details, but the father owns a number of cars that are hired to taxi drivers either short or long term. I believe it is one of these cars owned by the company.Not sure that is relevant or not though. As far as I am aware her insurance is valid for the purpose of her use. That is not being questioned. It is the fact it was stolen by a family member living with her that seems to be the issue. Also as above she is a reasonable person, and can understand the perspective on the car she had use of. Just not on the third party.
Thinking it through, the other guy would now have to claim off of his insurance (if he chooses to)and recover from an uninsured driver if the trade policy refuses to pay out? Does not seem fair to the third party either.
pork911 said:
regardless, she could always pay for neighbour's and dad's damage out of her own pocket?
With magic beans? If she could - I'm sure she would. But she does not have that sort of money. She does have an a
hole of of a kid though who has no respect for his mother. It transpires she was right. Her lad took the keys but was another lad driving. Don't think this makes any difference to what the insurance are saying.
I'm still surprised by the 3rd party point the insurers are making.
catman said:
I always believed that there was an obligation for third party claims. They may then seek redress from the identified driver.If not, then the MIB would pay out, surely?.
Tim
It's a motor trade certificate and thus (Probably) does not state a registration so it's not quite as straight forward as a normal policy.Tim
If the Insurers do pay out for a claim that's not technically covered by the policy but for which the law requires them to pay, they generally seek reimbersement from their own policyholder.
It's worth noting that the Insurers who cover Taxi drivers tend to have lots and lots of small print that they enforce, if it's a motor trade policy connected to the taxi business the same will generally apply and these Insurers try their very best to avoid claims.
Also worth noting that taxi fleet owners have a habit of cutting corners with Insurance and being economical with the information they supply their Insurers, if the policyholder has cut any corners this type of claim with bring them to the fore.
The good news is the exclusions for theft by a family member tend to apply to family members and people living with you, there's a very good chance if the son's friend stole the keys AND the vehicle that the exclusion will not apply and it will be treated as a normal theft. It will depend on the exact wording of the policy.
Depending on the size of the business, the Ombudsman may not have any jurisdiction which could be a pain if it cuts up rough.
Please tell those involved it's important to tell the Insurers the truth about all matters they ask as the type of people who will be involved in this type eg Zollar of claim are extremely thorough and are trained to discover lies. If the Insurer discover fraud (Lies) they can decline an entire claim on a policy for businesses over a certain size
Dacouch - many thanks for that. I have no experience of trade/fleet policies - a useful insight there.
From further information garnered earlier today it appears that the way the policy is written is that it is a joint traders policy between her and her dad. They can both drive all fleet cars. They then have their own specific named cars on the same policy which both can drive either vehicle. It was one of these cars (hers) that was the vehicle stolen.
As to the honesty/full facts being given - I know her well and she is squeaky clean. Everything she knows will be told, as well as whatever the police discover. As stated before she is expecting no recovery of her losses (although hopefully that may not be the case), she is just a decent person and wants to ensure the member of the public with the other damaged car is not left out of pocket.
Is really sad that one selfish little st can put others through so much grief.
From further information garnered earlier today it appears that the way the policy is written is that it is a joint traders policy between her and her dad. They can both drive all fleet cars. They then have their own specific named cars on the same policy which both can drive either vehicle. It was one of these cars (hers) that was the vehicle stolen.
As to the honesty/full facts being given - I know her well and she is squeaky clean. Everything she knows will be told, as well as whatever the police discover. As stated before she is expecting no recovery of her losses (although hopefully that may not be the case), she is just a decent person and wants to ensure the member of the public with the other damaged car is not left out of pocket.
Is really sad that one selfish little s
t can put others through so much grief. I had almost exactly this scenario a few years ago with one of my company cars which was used by my co-director.
Her son took the car whilst his mother was out and crashed into 2 other cars. The insurer tried to say that the car was not covered because it was being driven by a non-licenced driver who was under age for the cover provided.
It was pointed out to the insurer by our company's lawyer that the car had been taken without the owner's consent which is covered under the Theft Act. Our cover included theft. They then agreed to pay for all damage on a fully comp basis.
Her son took the car whilst his mother was out and crashed into 2 other cars. The insurer tried to say that the car was not covered because it was being driven by a non-licenced driver who was under age for the cover provided.
It was pointed out to the insurer by our company's lawyer that the car had been taken without the owner's consent which is covered under the Theft Act. Our cover included theft. They then agreed to pay for all damage on a fully comp basis.
So the son took the keys to his mothers car on Saturday night and his friend drove the car a short distance and smashed into a neighbours car hard enough to write off the mothers car.
I would have thought the accident would make a lot of noise and many people would be coming out of their houses to see whats happened.But no no one heard a thing and the accident was only noticed the next morning.
A load of ballt in my opinion.
I would have thought the accident would make a lot of noise and many people would be coming out of their houses to see whats happened.But no no one heard a thing and the accident was only noticed the next morning.
A load of ball
t in my opinion.There are too many variables to give a specific answer. The issue is with it being a commercial policy, rather than a personal lines one, which are fairly simple.
Issues are that I'm not sure what business is that the policy is covering. Is it a taxi firm, or just a firm that rents taxis to taxi firms? Or is it one of those that rents taxis out, like a hairdressing salon does chairs? Is it taxis or minicabs? World of difference there.
Even if I knew that I couldn't say for certain what the issue is. I'd need the full policy docs for that.
There is a distinct possibility that the car may not npbe covered by them if it's supposed to cover taxis though amd is instead covering his daughters private car. You need to be prepared for that.
Assuming everything is in order then the process is as simple as the TP's car will be covered, although he'll probably have to claim through his insurance and let them recover the outlay. Your friends car is unlikely to be covered depending on the input of her son, although involving the police does help her cause.
However the fact the insuramce are already refusing to cover this does suggest that there may well be an issue with her car being on the policy.
Dacouch has given good info. Listen to him too, but not the rest of the noise.
Issues are that I'm not sure what business is that the policy is covering. Is it a taxi firm, or just a firm that rents taxis to taxi firms? Or is it one of those that rents taxis out, like a hairdressing salon does chairs? Is it taxis or minicabs? World of difference there.
Even if I knew that I couldn't say for certain what the issue is. I'd need the full policy docs for that.
There is a distinct possibility that the car may not npbe covered by them if it's supposed to cover taxis though amd is instead covering his daughters private car. You need to be prepared for that.
Assuming everything is in order then the process is as simple as the TP's car will be covered, although he'll probably have to claim through his insurance and let them recover the outlay. Your friends car is unlikely to be covered depending on the input of her son, although involving the police does help her cause.
However the fact the insuramce are already refusing to cover this does suggest that there may well be an issue with her car being on the policy.
Dacouch has given good info. Listen to him too, but not the rest of the noise.
LoonR1 said:
There are too many variables to give a specific answer. The issue is with it being a commercial policy, rather than a personal lines one, which are fairly simple.
Issues are that I'm not sure what business is that the policy is covering. Is it a taxi firm, or just a firm that rents taxis to taxi firms? Or is it one of those that rents taxis out, like a hairdressing salon does chairs? Is it taxis or minicabs? World of difference there.
Even if I knew that I couldn't say for certain what the issue is. I'd need the full policy docs for that.
There is a distinct possibility that the car may not npbe covered by them if it's supposed to cover taxis though amd is instead covering his daughters private car. You need to be prepared for that.
Assuming everything is in order then the process is as simple as the TP's car will be covered, although he'll probably have to claim through his insurance and let them recover the outlay. Your friends car is unlikely to be covered depending on the input of her son, although involving the police does help her cause.
However the fact the insuramce are already refusing to cover this does suggest that there may well be an issue with her car being on the policy.
Dacouch has given good info. Listen to him too, but not the rest of the noise.
I've done a few of this type of Taxi Fleet and some of the larger fleets eg 100 odd taxis have their own garage to service and repair the vehicles and as a result need tool cover and other internals etc hence the Motor Trade Policy it also allows the owner to collect newly purchased cars and sell them on etc. Having a separate garage can also be tax efficient.Issues are that I'm not sure what business is that the policy is covering. Is it a taxi firm, or just a firm that rents taxis to taxi firms? Or is it one of those that rents taxis out, like a hairdressing salon does chairs? Is it taxis or minicabs? World of difference there.
Even if I knew that I couldn't say for certain what the issue is. I'd need the full policy docs for that.
There is a distinct possibility that the car may not npbe covered by them if it's supposed to cover taxis though amd is instead covering his daughters private car. You need to be prepared for that.
Assuming everything is in order then the process is as simple as the TP's car will be covered, although he'll probably have to claim through his insurance and let them recover the outlay. Your friends car is unlikely to be covered depending on the input of her son, although involving the police does help her cause.
However the fact the insuramce are already refusing to cover this does suggest that there may well be an issue with her car being on the policy.
Dacouch has given good info. Listen to him too, but not the rest of the noise.
There can be an element of abuse of the MT policy even by bona fide Taxi Fleets.
Unfortunately some of the owners of taxi fleets are not bona fide and can totally abuse the MT policy, I've heard of some who charge people to be named drivers on the policy so they can obtain cheap insurance although as you know the cover is not worth the paper it's written on for these people and the traffic cops are pretty good at detecting these. Also heard of them using them to get (Insurance) seized cars out of the compound for a fee.
I suspect the OP's family business is legit although experience in this field means I would be very surprised if they've not gone with the cheapest Insurer and ended up with a policy with lots & lots of small print and an ethos of doing their best to avoid paying claims.
Guessing the Insurer's name ends with "ex"
As you say, the devil is in the detail eg the policy wording and exactly what has happened
Fats25 said:
btcc123 said:
A load of ballt in my opinion.
Thanks for that. I don't remember asking if anyone believed the story, I was asking for an opinion on 3rd party insurance. t in my opinion.Do you have an opinion? If not you can take your ball to another thread.
Fats25 said:
pork911 said:
regardless, she could always pay for neighbour's and dad's damage out of her own pocket?
With magic beans? If she could - I'm sure she would. But she does not have that sort of money. She does have an a
hole of of a kid though who has no respect for his mother. It transpires she was right. Her lad took the keys but was another lad driving. Don't think this makes any difference to what the insurance are saying.
I'm still surprised by the 3rd party point the insurers are making.
even if claimable i'm sure this use wasn't grandpa's intention for the company car on his fleet policy
in the meantime minor scrote has got 6 weeks to presumably spend daily sprucing mum, grandpa and neighbour's gardens
as for your enquiry its next to useless asking here given the type of policy, but if she is similarly inclined to grasp for someone else to pay i'm not surprised at the boy's behaviour
R2T2 said:
I'm not a lawyer, but surely it's still TWOC and therefore insurance will be valid?
Don't think so. Certainly when my brother's fairly new A4 was T-boned and written off by a stolen car it was his insurance that paid out. Messed his premiums up by quite a lot for a few years too.Sheepshanks said:
Don't think so. Certainly when my brother's fairly new A4 was T-boned and written off by a stolen car it was his insurance that paid out. Messed his premiums up by quite a lot for a few years too.
If the thief was caught then the TP's insurance pays out. If not then it's his insurance that covers it. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff