Discussion
Just got a quick question, I have a BMW Z4 and my dad is the main driver on the insurance I am a named driver, the cover we have is SD&P I never really use the car only on the odd Sunday when the weathers nice, I was planning on going to a hospital appointment last Wednesday but later found out it was for Thursday so I took the car to work and carried on with my normal day. On my break I was reversing the car out and another car came up behind me and I hit his door. When I went to tell the my insurance I found out he wasn't insuranced, I tried contacting him but no answer. My insurance got ahold of me today and told me that him and the passenger are claiming whip lash and the damages to his car, I have contacted the police a told them the situation. Can anyone give me advice on this or know what will happen?
Thanks Kieran
Thanks Kieran
your insurance company will pay them out, likely the whiplash too
Whether they're insured or not you still hit them and as a result are liable for their damages and any injuries (fictitious or otherwise) - I don't agree with this but it's what'll happen unfortunately.
I'd just let the insurers deal with it and monitor whats behind you a little more carefully
Whether they're insured or not you still hit them and as a result are liable for their damages and any injuries (fictitious or otherwise) - I don't agree with this but it's what'll happen unfortunately.
I'd just let the insurers deal with it and monitor whats behind you a little more carefully
Kie0161 said:
Just got a quick question, I have a BMW Z4 and my dad is the main driver on the insurance I am a named driver, the cover we have is SD&P I never really use the car only on the odd Sunday when the weathers nice, I was planning on going to a hospital appointment last Wednesday but later found out it was for Thursday so I took the car to work and carried on with my normal day. On my break I was reversing the car out and another car came up behind me and I hit his door. When I went to tell the my insurance I found out he wasn't insuranced, I tried contacting him but no answer. My insurance got ahold of me today and told me that him and the passenger are claiming whip lash and the damages to his car, I have contacted the police a told them the situation. Can anyone give me advice on this or know what will happen?
Thanks Kieran
Attempting not to appear pedantic, however your first sentence smacks of being a little naughty if correct. You state it's your Z4, however you're only a Named Driver?? That being the case, your insurance is at best suspect & at worst fraudulent as i'm sure the Main Driver (your Dad) would have been asked if the car is owned & reg'd to them, however if it's your car then this surely isn't the case?. Your Dad may have answered truthfully & the increased premiums would be reflective of this, in which case it's still somewhat naughty owning & running a car, however having a reliable as the main driver to keep the premiums down & if i'm correct is frowned upon by all Insurers.Thanks Kieran
If you have SD&P, then surely you are not insured to drive your/the car to work? You need SD&P and commuting cover.
Kie0161 said:
Just got a quick question, I have a BMW Z4 and my dad is the main driver on the insurance I am a named driver, the cover we have is SD&P I never really use the car only on the odd Sunday when the weathers nice, I was planning on going to a hospital appointment last Wednesday but later found out it was for Thursday so I took the car to work and carried on with my normal day. On my break I was reversing the car out and another car came up behind me and I hit his door. When I went to tell the my insurance I found out he wasn't insuranced, I tried contacting him but no answer. My insurance got ahold of me today and told me that him and the passenger are claiming whip lash and the damages to his car, I have contacted the police a told them the situation. Can anyone give me advice on this or know what will happen?
Thanks Kieran
Thanks Kieran
If he has no insurance, and you/your insurance company dig in your heels, what would his avenue be to do anything about that? With no insurance, he won't have anyone to help him out on the legal side of things, will he?
My opinion is that not being insured like that should bar you from being able to make any claims at all, and I'm actually surprised the insurance companies haven't lobbied for something like that. It's the only scenario when they lose out every time. At least normally if you're paying out for something a client has done, you've got them and others paying you premiums, and there'll be someone else you're claiming on behalf of for a different incident.
My opinion is that not being insured like that should bar you from being able to make any claims at all, and I'm actually surprised the insurance companies haven't lobbied for something like that. It's the only scenario when they lose out every time. At least normally if you're paying out for something a client has done, you've got them and others paying you premiums, and there'll be someone else you're claiming on behalf of for a different incident.
InitialDave said:
If he has no insurance, and you/your insurance company dig in your heels, what would his avenue be to do anything about that? With no insurance, he won't have anyone to help him out on the legal side of things, will he?
My opinion is that not being insured like that should bar you from being able to make any claims at all, and I'm actually surprised the insurance companies haven't lobbied for something like that. It's the only scenario when they lose out every time. At least normally if you're paying out for something a client has done, you've got them and others paying you premiums, and there'll be someone else you're claiming on behalf of for a different incident.
If the OP's insurer dug their heels in, the TP would still be within his rights to appoint a no win, no fee solicitor to take his case on like anyone else.My opinion is that not being insured like that should bar you from being able to make any claims at all, and I'm actually surprised the insurance companies haven't lobbied for something like that. It's the only scenario when they lose out every time. At least normally if you're paying out for something a client has done, you've got them and others paying you premiums, and there'll be someone else you're claiming on behalf of for a different incident.
Insured or not, if someone negligently drove into them, they're still entitled to present a claim.
SydneyBridge said:
Only the owner of a car can insure it, so your dad would have to be a named driver, not the other way round.
Report the other driver to the police for no insurance, he can still claim against you but being prosecuted may make it more bearable for you
I'm not entirely sure that's correct, lease cats can be in the lease companies name and you are the one who is liable for it - insurance companies ask who the registered keeper and owner is.Report the other driver to the police for no insurance, he can still claim against you but being prosecuted may make it more bearable for you
KungFuPanda said:
If the OP's insurer dug their heels in, the TP would still be within his rights to appoint a no win, no fee solicitor to take his case on like anyone else.
Yes, good point.KungFuPanda said:
Insured or not, if someone negligently drove into them, they're still entitled to present a claim.
If someone drives around with no insurance cover whatsoever, they're entitled to a kick in the balls, that's what they're entitled to. Scumbags.I'm nowhere near as bothered about the OP's apparent fronting or commuting when not covered to do so as I am about someone just rolling around with nothing at all for cover and seemingly getting away with it. At least the OP's insurers will still sort out an affected third party.
InitialDave said:
If someone drives around with no insurance cover whatsoever, they're entitled to a kick in the balls, that's what they're entitled to.
Can you point the OP in the direction of this legal ruling, since then all his troubles will be over! The OP has a problem. He doesn't have commuting cover by the sound of it. His insurers will deal with the tp claim. Just because the tp was breaking the law by having no insurance, that doesn't entitle other people to negligently hit them and get away with it.
Once the OP's insurers have settled the tp claim, they will have the right to sue the OP for their money back, as the OP also didn't have the cover in place for what he was using the car for.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you point the OP in the direction of this legal ruling, since then all his troubles will be over!
The OP has a problem. He doesn't have commuting cover by the sound of it. His insurers will deal with the tp claim. Just because the tp was breaking the law by having no insurance, that doesn't entitle other people to negligently hit them and get away with it.
Once the OP's insurers have settled the tp claim, they will have the right to sue the OP for their money back, as the OP also didn't have the cover in place for what he was using the car for.
Well, as I already said. He might have been being a bit naughty, but ultimately his insurers will sort things out for an affected third party, what happens between him and them afterwards is a separate matter. That's the dividing line for me, and what makes the other guy a total wThe OP has a problem. He doesn't have commuting cover by the sound of it. His insurers will deal with the tp claim. Just because the tp was breaking the law by having no insurance, that doesn't entitle other people to negligently hit them and get away with it.
Once the OP's insurers have settled the tp claim, they will have the right to sue the OP for their money back, as the OP also didn't have the cover in place for what he was using the car for.
ker. I am aware of what the law is, but I definitely have my own opinions as to what it should be. If you're going to go on the roads with none of the legally mandated cover, why should you be entitled to claim on someone else's? You want to take on the risk, you take all of it.InitialDave said:
I am aware of what the law is, but I definitely have my own opinions as to what it should be. If you're going to go on the roads with none of the legally mandated cover, why should you be entitled to claim on someone else's? You want to take on the risk, you take all of it.
If someone post for advice, I'm not sure someone else posting to say "this isn't what will happen but it's what would happen if I was king" is much use to them. And....the OP was driving to work without insurance cover that allowed him to drive to work. If he was hit by a complete loon driving on the wrong side of the road, and was left paralysed for life, in your book that's just tough, serves him right for not having insurance?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If someone post for advice, I'm not sure someone else posting to say "this isn't what will happen but it's what would happen if I was king" is much use to them.
Why not, it's what usually happens. It's not like I'm bagging on the OP about it, I'm just frustrated that someone can behave like that and get away with it. And it doesn't need me to be king (though you'd like it if I were, good tax breaks on PH-approved cars), as I said, I'm amazed the insurance industry don't push hard for somethign similar, they're the ones getting the hit for it.TwigtheWonderkid said:
And....the OP was driving to work without insurance cover that allowed him to drive to work. If he was hit by a complete loon driving on the wrong side of the road, and was left paralysed for life, in your book that's just tough, serves him right for not having insurance?
No, because he still has insurance, and the debate over whether he has the correct insurance is between him and his insurers. He would have cover to meet his obligations to a third party, as he does in this situation. That's what I consider to be the most important thing, and is a world of difference from someone who deliberately avoids that.I think you are being too one sided.
Neither party had bought the insurance they need, so how can one be better than the other?
Neither party had bought the insurance they need, so how can one be better than the other?
InitialDave said:
No, because he still has insurance, and the debate over whether he has the correct insurance is between him and his insurers. He would have cover to meet his obligations to a third party, as he does in this situation. That's what I consider to be the most important thing, and is a world of difference from someone who deliberately avoids that.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff