Parking incident and insurance debacle
Discussion
The in-laws have had a potentially expensive incident.
They were parking in a shopping centre, opened the door of their car and a strong gust of wind took it and bashed it into the side of a new BMW parked next to them. BMW driver has had it to the dealer and they say needs new door, seems unlikely but whatever. Seems he doesn't want a repair, on a new car I suppose this is understandable. I haven't seen it, nor do they have any pictures (argh) but they describe it as 'quite a dint'.
So sadly this isn't straightforward insurance job - my FIL was driving (car was parked and engine off) thinking he was covered under DOC on his policy (I know, I know). He's since checked and lo and behold it doesn't cover spouse's vehicle. My MIL told the insurance company he was driving, giving them the perfect excuse to not want anything to do with it. They are refusing to cover it, and right now in-laws faced with 2k bill to sort the door. Currently this is not being pursued by BMW driver's insurance. Anything they can do?
They were parking in a shopping centre, opened the door of their car and a strong gust of wind took it and bashed it into the side of a new BMW parked next to them. BMW driver has had it to the dealer and they say needs new door, seems unlikely but whatever. Seems he doesn't want a repair, on a new car I suppose this is understandable. I haven't seen it, nor do they have any pictures (argh) but they describe it as 'quite a dint'.
So sadly this isn't straightforward insurance job - my FIL was driving (car was parked and engine off) thinking he was covered under DOC on his policy (I know, I know). He's since checked and lo and behold it doesn't cover spouse's vehicle. My MIL told the insurance company he was driving, giving them the perfect excuse to not want anything to do with it. They are refusing to cover it, and right now in-laws faced with 2k bill to sort the door. Currently this is not being pursued by BMW driver's insurance. Anything they can do?
<slowly puts hand up>
If the car was involved in a "proper accident", with the FIL driving... Wouldn't the insurer be obliged to pay for any damage, even though the driver was not insured to be driving?
How is this any different?
And if a claim is made would the ins co be within their rights to pursue the couple for their costs?
(Happy to be told I'm wrong).
Pay up, as much as they want, quickly, with a smile is probably the best bet though.
If the car was involved in a "proper accident", with the FIL driving... Wouldn't the insurer be obliged to pay for any damage, even though the driver was not insured to be driving?
How is this any different?
And if a claim is made would the ins co be within their rights to pursue the couple for their costs?
(Happy to be told I'm wrong).
Pay up, as much as they want, quickly, with a smile is probably the best bet though.
megaphone said:
They could speak to the BMW owner, explain they are not going through their insurance, suggest he claims off his insurance and they pay his excess.
If that were me, I would refuse, and also begin to smell a rat. As others have said, pay up. As my old Mum used to say 'you buy your learning'.megaphone said:
They could speak to the BMW owner, explain they are not going through their insurance, suggest he claims off his insurance and they pay his excess.
And the subsequent increase in his policy (and possibly other policies) for the next 4-5 years?If they want to avoid hassle, possibly legal then surely the only option is to pay for the repair...
megaphone said:
They could speak to the BMW owner, explain they are not going through their insurance, suggest he claims off his insurance and they pay his excess.
If, from the BMW owner's perspective, anything was going to make me contact my own insurer and put it in their hands that would!Chester draws said:
<slowly puts hand up>
If the car was involved in a "proper accident", with the FIL driving... Wouldn't the insurer be obliged to pay for any damage, even though the driver was not insured to be driving?
Correct me if I'm wrong but why would this insurance company be on the hook for third party liabilities? The driver isn't the policyholder, the driver is someone effectively unknown to the insurer. Is the insurer on the hook for TP cover if anyone is behind the wheel then?If the car was involved in a "proper accident", with the FIL driving... Wouldn't the insurer be obliged to pay for any damage, even though the driver was not insured to be driving?
How is this insurance company any more liable than any other one when it comes to a random driver?
Notwithstanding that I don't really understand how a parked car has a nominated driver. If the policyholder was with the driver, and neither were actually driving, wouldn't the policy cover the claim since the vehicle itself is insured by them?
I would get to the bottom of the severity of the damage firstly.
Best case scenario for both parties is if the dent could be removed by a PDR company. Skilled people can work wonders with sizeable dents. That's assuming that there isn't damage to the paint.
The suggestion that the other driver should claim through his insurance is totally unjust. It's only fair your FIL pays up for this one.
Best case scenario for both parties is if the dent could be removed by a PDR company. Skilled people can work wonders with sizeable dents. That's assuming that there isn't damage to the paint.
The suggestion that the other driver should claim through his insurance is totally unjust. It's only fair your FIL pays up for this one.
Durzel said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but why would this insurance company be on the hook for third party liabilities? The driver isn't the policyholder, the driver is someone effectively unknown to the insurer. Is the insurer on the hook for TP cover if anyone is behind the wheel then?
In principle yes, providing the driver can be identified I believe. Even if they stole the car!I don't know if there is a get out for a spouse though.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 2nd September 12:18
Durzel said:
Chester draws said:
<slowly puts hand up>
If the car was involved in a "proper accident", with the FIL driving... Wouldn't the insurer be obliged to pay for any damage, even though the driver was not insured to be driving?
Correct me if I'm wrong but why would this insurance company be on the hook for third party liabilities? The driver isn't the policyholder, the driver is someone effectively unknown to the insurer. Is the insurer on the hook for TP cover if anyone is behind the wheel then?If the car was involved in a "proper accident", with the FIL driving... Wouldn't the insurer be obliged to pay for any damage, even though the driver was not insured to be driving?
How is this insurance company any more liable than any other one when it comes to a random driver?
Notwithstanding that I don't really understand how a parked car has a nominated driver. If the policyholder was with the driver, and neither were actually driving, wouldn't the policy cover the claim since the vehicle itself is insured by them?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff