.insurer behaving badly?

[jesfirth]

My relative unfortunately knocked a cyclist off a bike recently. 2 completely independent witnesses to the accident have provided statements to my relatives insurer confirming that it was entirely the cyclists fault. he however hurt his shoulder when he fell off and has claimed. Our insurer wants to settle and make the cyclist an offer of £1000 to go away. They have offered that my relative retain her NCB if the offer is made. She refused and said its not her fault why should the insurer do this and is worried that her insurance premium will rise because of the "fault" accident on her record regardless of the NCB situation.

The insurer advised my relative yesterday firstly that they could not release the witness statements, then when she insisted they said she had to pay £10 then they advised it would take 60 days to provide a copy of the statements, then advised that she could not go on holiday because it may go to court. There is no prosecution as this is a civil matter.

It strikes me that the insurer is probably being pressurised by an ambulance chasing lawyer and just wants to settle at my relatives cost which is not equitable. I am just about to deal with it for my relative, she is young and needs the help so my questions

1. can our insurer refuse to handover the witness statements
2. can our insurer really charge for releasing documents
3. can I insist on email correspondence rather than phone calls. if the latter only I will be recording them but will advise them first.

[Markbarry1977]

In for this one. I bloody hate the way insurance companies muck people about. You pay your premium in good faith hoping not to need it and when you do all they seem to do is cause grief.


Best of luck op, I'm not a lawyer/insurance person so can't advise but I hope your relative gets the outcome they want.

[Magic919]

Sometimes they try to bully their client into an outcome. I've seen this first hand with a relative.

Ultimately, you can't dictate how they settle a claim. This is all covered in the contract. Having said that, I believe it pays to keep loudly objecting and putting across your point of view.

She can tell them she wants it in writing. It might stop some of the poor behaviour.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

When you ask your insurer to deal with a claim, fault or non fault, you hand over rights of subrogation. Legally, they become you. They can settle the claim in whatever way they deem fit, and don't have to ask for you permission or even consult you. The fact that they have consulted the policyholder means they have done more than they legally have to. So they are not behaving badly, in fact they are behaving rather well.

If they want to settle, it's not because they enjoy throwing money away, it's because they actually believe that in the longer term that's the lowest cost option. And they are probably right.

[jesfirth]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

When you ask your insurer to deal with a claim, fault or non fault, you hand over rights of subrogation. Legally, they become you. They can settle the claim in whatever way they deem fit, and don't have to ask for you permission or even consult you. The fact that they have consulted the policyholder means they have done more than they legally have to. So they are not behaving badly, in fact they are behaving rather well.

If they want to settle, it's not because they enjoy throwing money away, it's because they actually believe that in the longer term that's the lowest cost option. And they are probably right.

thanks - that is helpful. just one question - the reference to the lowest cost option - I assume that is their lowest cost option rather than our lowest cost option?

[TooMany2cvs]

jesfirth said:

thanks - that is helpful. just one question - the reference to the lowest cost option - I assume that is their lowest cost option rather than our lowest cost option?

Of course.

But I don't think there's a big difference in this case.

She was involved in a collision. She has to declare that for the next five years anyway. They are offering to let her keep her NCB. That, to me, suggests it's being viewed as not-at-fault, and an ex-gratia payment without declaring liability (which could incur a future liability). So there's really no difference to what she needs to declare. Ask for assurance that it'll be flagged as not-at-fault, and the grand they may or may not pay is irrelevant to her insurance record.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

jesfirth said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

When you ask your insurer to deal with a claim, fault or non fault, you hand over rights of subrogation. Legally, they become you. They can settle the claim in whatever way they deem fit, and don't have to ask for you permission or even consult you. The fact that they have consulted the policyholder means they have done more than they legally have to. So they are not behaving badly, in fact they are behaving rather well.

If they want to settle, it's not because they enjoy throwing money away, it's because they actually believe that in the longer term that's the lowest cost option. And they are probably right.

thanks - that is helpful. just one question - the reference to the lowest cost option - I assume that is their lowest cost option rather than our lowest cost option?

It can be. Yes, it will cost you more if they settle for £1K and it's a fault claim, rather than spend £2K successfully fighting it and it ending up a non fault claim. But in the long run, if they fought everything and increased their costs in doing so, who do you think will end up paying? It all goes on premiums eventually.

[dacouch]

It's also worth noting that a witness statement from a member of the public or even a police officer stating the accident was the cyclists fault. Does not mean a court of law will read the same statement and come to the conclusion that the cyclist was at fault. With the benefit of the sight of all evidence and understanding case law they may feel the cyclist was only partially at fault or was totally innocent

[anniesdad]

OP, if your relative is so determined to see justice being done she could defend herself, tell the insurers to close their file and tell them that she will deal with the third party cyclists claim. However, she will need to represent herself as a litigant in person unless she instructs her own solicitor/barrister to represent her, which will of course cost her. If she intends to rely upon the independent witnesses she will need to ensure that she can get them to a court hearing to provide testimony in her favour. If she loses at trial, she can expect to not only pay for the costs of the cyclists claim but also the legal costs of the other parties representatives.

Her insurers have suggested they may be able to get out of this for £1K and also not prejudice her no claims discount in the process. Effectively settle the claim without prejudice. My advice would be to take her insurers up on their advice, forget all about it and move on with her life.

[anniesdad]

jesfirth said:

then advised that she could not go on holiday because it may go to court.

Sorry but

Did she really get told that by her insurance company's claims handler?!

[jesfirth]

thanks all - just spoke to the insurer. actually its mostly a storm in a tea cup - they are being pragmatic, helpful and seemingly very fair. if they carry on in this manner once its sorted I will be naming them as a good company to use - there that will make a change!!