What a kick in the goolies.
Discussion
WTAF!
Have your home ransacked, and your car stolen, and the cops claim against your insurance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-3897...
Have your home ransacked, and your car stolen, and the cops claim against your insurance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-3897...
Higgs boson said:
WTAF!
Have your home ransacked, and your car stolen, and the cops claim against your insurance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-3897...
<shrug> Total non-story.Have your home ransacked, and your car stolen, and the cops claim against your insurance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-3897...
The policemen were injured when his car (stolen) rammed their car.
The driver was not insured, so their claim is against the MID insurer-of-record of the car. It's just part of the theft claim, because it's damages arising from the theft.
If the stolen car had come through your front door, you'd claim your front door off the car's insurer as part of the theft claim.
That's the way it always works. The fact it's police is irrelevant.
BBC said:
Mr Duffin said his no-claims bonus was likely to be affected and he feared his car insurance premiums could increase as a result.
He's going to find his NCB and premium are hit by having the car stolen and written off, not by the fine detail of the size of that claim..."Although the victim is entirely innocent and someone else has stolen the vehicle, their insurance may go up as a result of a claim under their policy - that is simply the nature of car insurance," a spokesperson said.
If a Police car was rammed and the occupants injured by a gang in a car with all the identification removed who would the injured Police claim off?
If a Police car was rammed and the occupants injured by a gang in a car with all the identification removed who would the injured Police claim off?
popeyewhite said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Substitute "my car" for "police car", and "I" for "injured police".
OK, who would I claim off?TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the thieves get away, you claim off the MIB regardless of knowing who the car's insurer was. If the thieves are identified you claim off the insurer of the car, if it has any.
I'm far from an expert on insurance (if only the forum had someone who was ), but why wouldn't you claim off the vehicle's insurance if you didn't know who was driving the stolen car? La Liga said:
'm far from an expert on insurance (if only the forum had someone who was ), but why wouldn't you claim off the vehicle's insurance if you didn't know who was driving the stolen car?
My original question suggested we didn't know the identity of the car.), but why wouldn't you claim off the vehicle's insurance if you didn't know who was driving the stolen car? It seems odd that a public funded body such as the Police don't have their own fund set up for this type of thing. When hit by a Police car in an accident does an individual claim of the Police or the named (Police) driver's policy?
I may be mistaken but I vaguely remember some Ombudsman cases where it was ruled that if the insurer is required to pay out under the Road Traffic Act (as here) rather than settling a claim under the terms of the policy, the insurer should not treat it as a claim on the policy, eg by reducing the customer's no claims bonus.
So if the only claim was the one from the injured policemen (if they'd somehow rammed a police car and injured three cops without damaging the stolen car), it should not have much, if any, effect on the man's future premiums.
However given that his car was stolen and then written off by the thieves he is presumably making a theft claim of his own - and that will mean that his NCB is gone, regardless of what the injured poicemen do. Which makes the whole premise of the story a load of rubbish, really.
So if the only claim was the one from the injured policemen (if they'd somehow rammed a police car and injured three cops without damaging the stolen car), it should not have much, if any, effect on the man's future premiums.
However given that his car was stolen and then written off by the thieves he is presumably making a theft claim of his own - and that will mean that his NCB is gone, regardless of what the injured poicemen do. Which makes the whole premise of the story a load of rubbish, really.
popeyewhite said:
My original question suggested we didn't know the identity of the car.
In that case forget about my question, Twig. popeyewhite said:
It seems odd that a public funded body such as the Police don't have their own fund set up for this type of thing. When hit by a Police car in an accident does an individual claim of the Police or the named (Police) driver's policy?
The police officer is driving under the police's insurance so you'd claim from that. Just like if you're hit by someone driving a Tesco delivery vehicle they'd be driving under Tesco's insurance policy. In terms of any potential fund the tax payer would ultimately be paying for it. Insurance claims can cost millions.
La Liga said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the thieves get away, you claim off the MIB regardless of knowing who the car's insurer was. If the thieves are identified you claim off the insurer of the car, if it has any.
I'm far from an expert on insurance (if only the forum had someone who was ), but why wouldn't you claim off the vehicle's insurance if you didn't know who was driving the stolen car? So if the driver can't be identified it ends up as a MIB claim, which is a separate process governed by an agreement between the insurance industry and the government, rather than the Road Traffic Act. I believe that where there's an insurance policy on the car the MIB send it back to the vehicle's insurers to deal with under Article 75 of the MIB agreement - which means that the vehicle's insurers still end up paying, just under different terms. If there's no insurance policy on the car at all then it's paid by the MIB itself, funded by a levy on insurance companies in general.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff