First Insurance Claim - Advice appreciated

[sparks85]

Afternoon all,

After a little steer from you knowledgeable people if possible. I'll keep it brief, please ask if more info is needed.

- About 6 weeks ago a third party's (TP from here on) car crashed into our parked car (outside our house) in the middle of the night. We were asleep in bed.
- TP's car also hit 4 other parked cars, came to a stop in middle of road. TP was injured.
- Police attended and detained TP. There is the suspicion they were pursuing the TP.
- Police informed us the TP was driving his parents vehicle, that he was on a provisional licence but without a qualified driver in the car
- Police issued a crime (CAD?) number and details of TP's insurance company
- Our car was mullered and an obvious write off
- We reported to our insurance company, our car was recovered the next day
- Our insurance company is through a broker
- Fast forward a few weeks and our insurance company we believe are messing us around
- They have offered a payout (say £4.3k) based on their assessment of our car's value but with the excess (£600) deducted - so an offer of £3.7k.
- According our Insurance Co, the TP's insurance company have confirmed that the TP's car was used but it was taken without permission
- I understand the TP's Insurance Co have not accepted liability


Here's where I need some advice. My OH is handling the claim and our Insurance Co are being obstructive.

- Our Insurance Co are refusing to pay out the full amount including our excess
- As this is a not at fault claim we believe we should be paid the full amount including the excess, which should be recovered from the TP's insurance company
- Our Insurance Co are saying we should reclaim our excess through our broker (my argument is our contract is with our insurance co)
- Our Insurance Co are saying they can't settle with the TP Insurance Co until we accept their offer


As this is the first time we have claimed between us we're not familiar with the process and we suspect that as soon as we accept the payout (minus the excess) it'll be like getting blood out of a stone from our Insurance Co for the excess.

Could anyone advise on:

- Are our assumptions above correct (ref being owed the excess) - or are our expectations way off base here?
- How to best to proceed in terms of what to expect/request from our Insurance Co, any tips on forcing this through.


Please let me know if any further info required, I have stuck to the facts above to keep it concise.

Gracias!

[Aretnap]

sparks85 said:

- Our Insurance Co are refusing to pay out the full amount including our excess
- As this is a not at fault claim we believe we should be paid the full amount including the excess, which should be recovered from the TP's insurance company
- Our Insurance Co are saying we should reclaim our excess through our broker (my argument is our contract is with our insurance co)

You are mistaken about your excess. Your excess is the part of your claim which your insurance policy does not cover. Your fault, someone else's fault, nobody's fault in particular, it makes no difference - if you make a claim on your policy you'll have to pay your excess (or have it deducted from your settlement cheque in the event of a write off). The contract with your insurer will say this (in one form or another).

Where the accident is someone else's fault (and you know whose) then what you can do is reclaim your excess from the third party's insurer, as an uninsured loss which he's caused you (along with any other uninsured lossed such as a hire car while yours is undriveable, or injury/time off work). If you have legal expenses cover then your insurer will appoint a solicitor to help you with this. Alternatively if it's a clear cut case they might be nice enough to waive the excess and reclaim it themselves - but if they do it's a goodwill gesture, not something they're obliged to do.

I'm told that assuming the third party's insurer admits liability (and it's hard to see how they can't in this case) reclaiming your excess from the third party insurer usually involves little more than sending them a receipt showing what you've paid (or had deducted from your payment) along with a letter requesting payment from them, but I have no direct experience of this.

sparks85 said:

- Our Insurance Co are saying they can't settle with the TP Insurance Co until we accept their offer

This is also correct - your insurance company are not your solicitors. They do not recover your costs on your behalf - rather they pay out to you and then recover their own costs from the TP insurer under their subrogation rights. Until they pay out to you they have incurred no costs, so there is nothing for them to reclaim from the third party's insurer.

[sparks85]

Thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply. Looks like they are playing it correctly; in our defence their story has changed everything we have spoke to them which is why we were suspicious.

In light of this I will check if we have legal cover and if get our IC to appoint a solicitor to pursue the excess.

If the TP IC haven't accepted liability and are stating the car was taken without consent, do we have any case to pursue though? Does it hinge on them accepting liability? Does an 'uninsured loss' cover this situation?

Assuming TP IC DO accept liability, can we claim the excess directly from them or do we have to go through our IC?

If TP IC have accepted liability will they provide that in writing to our IC?

Again any advice gratefully received.

Aretnap said:

stuff

[TooMany2cvs]

sparks85 said:

- Our Insurance Co are saying we should reclaim our excess through our broker (my argument is our contract is with our insurance co)

Your contract is with the broker - they're the ones you handed money to when you bought the policy, right?

[deggles]

sparks85 said:

- TP's car also hit 4 other parked cars, came to a stop in middle of road. TP was injured.
- Police attended and detained TP. There is the suspicion they were pursuing the TP.

Care to elaborate on 'suspicion'? If police were in pursuit and the end result was an RTA (and injuries sustained) this might complicate things. Not suggesting police were at fault but I would have thought there would at least be an investigation by the relevant force, if not an IPCC referral. Brings the possibility of another party and/or insurer to any potential claim?

[sparks85]

Basically it happened at night, when I woke up there were already police cars on the scene. None of the other neighbours were out when I rushed outside so I presume it had only just happened. If so police were on scene far too quickly for them to have responded to a 999 call.

The police wouldn't divulge what had happened. We think they tried to pull the guy over (perhaps driving erratically?) and he tried to flee. In the course of doing so I presume he lost control and crashed.

After the hubbub had died down, I'm sure I saw some independent police officers assessing the scene, presumably to ensure there could be no allegation raised against the police by the TP?

This is conjecture rather than fact.

deggles said:

Care to elaborate on 'suspicion'? If police were in pursuit and the end result was an RTA (and injuries sustained) this might complicate things. Not suggesting police were at fault but I would have thought there would at least be an investigation by the relevant force, if not an IPCC referral. Brings the possibility of another party and/or insurer to any potential claim?

[Pothole]

sparks85 said:

Basically it happened at night, when I woke up there were already police cars on the scene. None of the other neighbours were out when I rushed outside so I presume it had only just happened. If so police were on scene far too quickly for them to have responded to a 999 call.

The police wouldn't divulge what had happened. We think they tried to pull the guy over (perhaps driving erratically?) and he tried to flee. In the course of doing so I presume he lost control and crashed.

After the hubbub had died down, I'm sure I saw some independent police officers assessing the scene, presumably to ensure there could be no allegation raised against the police by the TP?

This is conjecture rather than fact.

deggles said:

Care to elaborate on 'suspicion'? If police were in pursuit and the end result was an RTA (and injuries sustained) this might complicate things. Not suggesting police were at fault but I would have thought there would at least be an investigation by the relevant force, if not an IPCC referral. Brings the possibility of another party and/or insurer to any potential claim?

FOI request to the force in question would be my next move.

[sparks85]

Pothole said:

FOI request to the force in question would be my next move.

Ask a silly (genuine) question - how will that help my insurance claim?

[Pica-Pica]

I had a truck pull out in front of me when I was on a roundabout, essentially it was a long low-loader and he misjudged. My car had front left wing smashed (I had done an emergency brake and steered as far to the right, but had to avoid the whole right side raking down a barrier). Well, I had to take my car in to be repaired. I had taken pictures and sent them sent and road layout etc to my insurer, paid my excess of £450 and got my car back after repairs. After several months of e-mails to my insurer, I got a 'oh, yes they admitted liability' and my insurance sent me a cheque for £450. I am not sure if I had not kept asking, they would have hoped I would forget.
So, I would assume, you pay the excess and claim back off of the TP. As for the police pursuit, I am not sure if that changes TP's liability.

[mac96]

TooMany2cvs said:

sparks85 said:

- Our Insurance Co are saying we should reclaim our excess through our broker (my argument is our contract is with our insurance co)

Your contract is with the broker - they're the ones you handed money to when you bought the policy, right?

Brokers and other similar intermediaries (insurance consultants etc) occupy a peculiar place and can be an agent of insurer or insured depending upon the circumstances- but they are not a party to the insurance contract which is between insurer and insured.
Dull stuff, but important if a dispute develops.

[dacouch]

It sounds like the driver has been identified which means his parents Insurer is ultimately liable for the claim.

Generally in this type of claim the TP Insurer will not be quick to accept liability as they will want to investigate the claim

[chml]

Unless the TPI (ins co.) accept liability, which seems unlikely, then you/your insurance company will need to apply for the police report to confirm that a TP was identified. Without this then it's potentially a claim against the MIB although I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have an appetite for this and would try to bat it back to the TPI. Your insurance broker will (more than likely) have bundled a legal expense policy in with your insurance, if so then it is that company that should assist in recovering your excess.

[SiH]

It's insurance companies pissing around and dragging their heels like this that helps to drive the use of Accident Management companies which in turn simply serves to push everyone's costs up, no doubt including the insurance companies themselves. In cases like this where the identity of the driver is not in question and the liable insurance company should be clear there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to fulfil their 3rd party obligations in a short space of time.
Hope the OP gets everything sorted properly without too much delay!

[sparks85]

Just to close the loop on this, this slipped off the radar for a few weeks as we got married...and returned to find a cheque for the excess waiting for us.

No communication or detail on why or what the outcome was, I can only assume the TP insurer admitted full liability.

So a good result and we avoided having to deal with our legal cover to pursue the excess. Win!