Insurance won't pay because driver was unconcious?
Discussion
So there is this accident local to me, Driver has medical episode and crashes into a shop.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norwich_butcher_says_i...
Now insurance are saying "it would raise a defence of automatism against all claims."
So no money for the shop owner and I supposed no money for the car?
What a cop out.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norwich_butcher_says_i...
Now insurance are saying "it would raise a defence of automatism against all claims."
So no money for the shop owner and I supposed no money for the car?
What a cop out.
IANAL. Very broadly speaking, the law is that if someone is negligent, and that negligence is,with sufficient proximity, responsible for damage to a third party, they are responsible for that damage.
If someone unexpectedly takes ill at the wheel, without any prior warning of a condition likely to cause them to lose control and, as a result, they crash, it's hard to argue they've been negligent.
Similarly, if you're alongside a truck one of its tyres blow, causing you damage, unless they've been negligent, it'll be your insurance footing your bill.
If someone unexpectedly takes ill at the wheel, without any prior warning of a condition likely to cause them to lose control and, as a result, they crash, it's hard to argue they've been negligent.
Similarly, if you're alongside a truck one of its tyres blow, causing you damage, unless they've been negligent, it'll be your insurance footing your bill.
This is a basic principle of insurance and tort law.
In general, for there to be a claim against a 3rd party (e.g. for the shop owner to claim against the car driver) there must have been negligence. No blame, no claim.
Unconsciousness due to an unforseeable medical condition is not negligence, and is instead bad luck. In this case, it is the shop owner's bad luck that his shop happened to be in the way of an out-of-control car, and the liability for the shop owner is his own to bear (or to pass to his insurers).
Unconsciousness due to a forseeable medical condition may be negligence (e.g. someone with diabetes), and this may not only attract financial liability but also criminal charges (e.g. dangerous driving).
In general, for there to be a claim against a 3rd party (e.g. for the shop owner to claim against the car driver) there must have been negligence. No blame, no claim.
Unconsciousness due to an unforseeable medical condition is not negligence, and is instead bad luck. In this case, it is the shop owner's bad luck that his shop happened to be in the way of an out-of-control car, and the liability for the shop owner is his own to bear (or to pass to his insurers).
Unconsciousness due to a forseeable medical condition may be negligence (e.g. someone with diabetes), and this may not only attract financial liability but also criminal charges (e.g. dangerous driving).
Edited by WatchfulEye on Saturday 15th October 21:58
mondeoman said:
So if I'm driving along and my tyre fails through no fault of mine and I crash into someone else, my insurance wont pay for their repairs, they'd have to go after the tyre fitter or manufacturer?
Cant see that happening somehow.
This happens all the time with cars hitting truck tyres on the motorway. It's just deemed to be hard luck (assuming the truck's maintenance records aren't lacking etc).Cant see that happening somehow.
mondeoman said:
So if I'm driving along and my tyre fails through no fault of mine and I crash into someone else, my insurance wont pay for their repairs, they'd have to go after the tyre fitter or manufacturer?
Cant see that happening somehow.
That's a slightly different scenario, the problem there would be proving that the tyre blowing out caused the crash and there was also actual contact between the two cars. If, however, your tyre blew out and left the carcass on the road which someone then hit their own insurance would have to cough up unless it could be shown that you were negligent.Cant see that happening somehow.
TooMany2cvs said:
Surely this comes under the insurer's RTA third party obligations, so they cannot legally get out of paying his claim? I suspect there's a lot more subtlety in it than the article makes out, probably around ongoing loss-of-business and other similar intangibles.
Why would the insurer pay the 3rd party when/if their client was not Negligent?TooMany2cvs said:
Surely this comes under the insurer's RTA third party obligations, so they cannot legally get out of paying his claim? I suspect there's a lot more subtlety in it than the article makes out, probably around ongoing loss-of-business and other similar intangibles.
The RTA requires Insurers to pay claims they are legally liable for which is the wording you will find in your Motor Policy eg to the effect of "We will indemnify you for claims you are legally liable for"As others have mentioned, a court of law will look at whether or not there was negligence and if so the Insurer will be required to indemnify as the driver is "Legally liable". If there is no negligence eg a true Automatism incident then the Insurer is not legally liable.
It's why if you go into the toilet of say McDonalds, they have a list on the wall of when the toilet was last inspected and / or cleaned by their staff. If you slip up on some spilyt water and sue them, they simply send the list showing they had inspected/cleaned the toilet every hour and it is normally enough to fend the claim off.
This is because the law looks at whether the slip claim could have been "Reasonably" avoided, by checking / cleaining the toiltes every hour, a court would normally see this as McDonalds doing all that is reasonably possible to prevent the claim and this not liable.
It's not that unusual for the claim to be denied if the driver has a heart attack out of the blue - ie:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/12/driv...
There was one in Scotland where a guy in a RangeRover killed a couple of women pedestrians but I think it turned out he's had a history of black-outs.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/12/driv...
There was one in Scotland where a guy in a RangeRover killed a couple of women pedestrians but I think it turned out he's had a history of black-outs.
No negligence, no claim.
Car A stopped at lights. Car B pulls up behind, stops in good time, leaves an IAM approved gap, neutral, handbrake, constant mirror observations, the whole nine yards.
Along comes Car C and entirely without warning ploughs into the back of Car B who in turn hits the back of Car A.
Car B has been the epitome of a conscientious driver. Car A will claim from Car B or directly from Car C?
Car A stopped at lights. Car B pulls up behind, stops in good time, leaves an IAM approved gap, neutral, handbrake, constant mirror observations, the whole nine yards.
Along comes Car C and entirely without warning ploughs into the back of Car B who in turn hits the back of Car A.
Car B has been the epitome of a conscientious driver. Car A will claim from Car B or directly from Car C?
Mill Wheel said:
Where would this leave a driver who for instance got into a slide on ice that was not visible and hit another vehicle or property?
Or on a diesel spill in wet weather?
It's quite rare but there is a case history for Black IceOr on a diesel spill in wet weather?
https://cases.legal/en/act-uk2-62574.html
http://www.kennedyslaw.com/casereview/rtaskidonbla...
I cannot stress enough that in this type of case, it would depend entirely on the merits of each case and this case does not mean all skids on ice are not at fault
As others have said, tp cover covers your legal liability. The law of the land says liability depends on negligence (apart from a very few specific circumstances which are named in law).
It's not an insurance cop out. It's basic law. That's why, in this case, the shop owner would have their own insurance to cover stuff happening to the shop that wasn't the fault of anyone, like a meteor strike, lightning or an unconscious driver hitting them.
It's not an insurance cop out. It's basic law. That's why, in this case, the shop owner would have their own insurance to cover stuff happening to the shop that wasn't the fault of anyone, like a meteor strike, lightning or an unconscious driver hitting them.
Well, I'm glad I posted this, I've learned a lot and I now understand the situation.
I retract my "cop out" statement.
I still find it quite scary that I could have been standing in that shop and been crippled for life, and it would have been my bad luck and not get a penny.
I would I have to sue the shop keeper for not protecting me from strag crashing cars?
I retract my "cop out" statement.
I still find it quite scary that I could have been standing in that shop and been crippled for life, and it would have been my bad luck and not get a penny.
I would I have to sue the shop keeper for not protecting me from strag crashing cars?
ferrariF50lover said:
No negligence, no claim.
Car A stopped at lights. Car B pulls up behind, stops in good time, leaves an IAM approved gap, neutral, handbrake, constant mirror observations, the whole nine yards.
Along comes Car C and entirely without warning ploughs into the back of Car B who in turn hits the back of Car A.
Car B has been the epitome of a conscientious driver. Car A will claim from Car B or directly from Car C?
From my experience as car A, we all passed it onto our own insurers to handle the claim against car D who admitted liability and was sent on a driver awareness course.Car A stopped at lights. Car B pulls up behind, stops in good time, leaves an IAM approved gap, neutral, handbrake, constant mirror observations, the whole nine yards.
Along comes Car C and entirely without warning ploughs into the back of Car B who in turn hits the back of Car A.
Car B has been the epitome of a conscientious driver. Car A will claim from Car B or directly from Car C?
Key question which was asked repeatedly of me by all the insurers involved was did I feel 2 bumps or 1 (I felt 1) as that helped to determine whether I was hit by car B or C first before car D the pile, or whether car D pushed C into B into A.
Bristol spark said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Surely this comes under the insurer's RTA third party obligations, so they cannot legally get out of paying his claim? I suspect there's a lot more subtlety in it than the article makes out, probably around ongoing loss-of-business and other similar intangibles.
Why would the insurer pay the 3rd party when/if their client was not Negligent?My insurance paid me within two weeks, but as I later found out hadn't paid the other parties (I damaged a car and house owned by two seperate parties) over a year later.
Loon R1 was still on the forum then, and explained to me why the other parties hadn't been paid, although he did say that the insurance industry were under pressure at that time to stop using the loopholes (his description) that they were using.
My insurance did eventually (and quite correctly in my opinion), pay before it went to court.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff