Accident - non-fault at court - insurer not indemnifying TP

[kiethton]

As my solicitor is now out of office I thought I'd turn to PH in case I have the wrong end of the stick

I was involved in a motorbike accident a good 4 years ago now, knocked off while riding to work by a driver pulling-out from a side junction as I was filtering at low speed - needed another 30cm to stop fully.

After a lot of too-ing and fro-ing I was sued for damages to the car (£1k for chipsaway), £6k for hire car charges (the car was still driveable) and £3k for whiplash (from a 125cc bike at 2mph....). The documents were initially sent to the wrong address, I lost by default and a CCJ reset the process. I then won at the re-run, with liability placed 100% on the third party and I was awarded my counterclaim (£1k plus expenses - bent my iphone in my pocket and a new helmet plus costs). This was now nearly 3 months ago (the TP had 1 month to pay) and I've received nothing to date.

My solicitor (arranged via my insurer) has now told me that the third party's insurer will not be covering the TP and that the TP will need to cover these costs himself. Given the nature of the TP both my solicitor and I doubt that this will be forthcoming so he is looking toward further enforcement action.

I don't know whether I've got the wrong end of the stick but i had always thought that if the TP is named on the insurance for a car (named driver) and causes an accident for which they are liable (they got legal representation from their insurer) the insurer would pay-out the damages and seek recovery from their client if they have acted outside of their terms (i suspect commuting on social use).

Beyond my solicitors escalating through the courts what can I insist on?

[PorkInsider]

I can’t be of any help other than to say I thought the same as you - TP insurer pays and pursues the TP if they want the money back.

[SydneyBridge]

have the TP not given any reasons for refusing to cover the claim?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

kiethton said:

I don't know whether I've got the wrong end of the stick but i had always thought that if the TP is named on the insurance for a car (named driver) and causes an accident for which they are liable (they got legal representation from their insurer) the insurer would pay-out the damages and seek recovery from their client if they have acted outside of their terms (i suspect commuting on social use).

Not always. There are a range of circumstances where the insurers can void the policy ab initio (from the start) and act as if they were never the insurer at all. But it's not easy for the insurer to do and they can only do it under certain circumstances.

I'd be asking my solicitor to contact the insurers for a full explanation of there position.

[MXRod]

Small claims court , £1k claim will cost £70 , on line

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MXRod said:

Small claims court , £1k claim will cost £70 , on line

He's done that, and won!

[MXRod]

Oops missed that, High Court Bailiffs . Fees not that much ,and TP has to cover them.

[Sheepshanks]

kiethton said:

I don't know whether I've got the wrong end of the stick but i had always thought that if the TP is named on the insurance for a car (named driver) and causes an accident for which they are liable (they got legal representation from their insurer) the insurer would pay-out the damages and seek recovery from their client if they have acted outside of their terms (i suspect commuting on social use).

I thought that was limited to personal injury.

Could you claim from the MIB - or is that limited to personal injury? I think they lean on insurers to pay out anyway.

[SydneyBridge]

MIB limited to PI and too late now

[Juicetin1]

Ask why the insurer of the vehicle will not be meeting the third party claim (you). Its compulsory by law, they can't dodge it. They have to settle the TP claim and then try and recover off their own insured, if they decide theres a reason they want to do that (non-disclosure, misrepresentation etc).
The insurer could only cancel the policy ab initio if the premium hadn't been paid. They would treat it as not taken up.
Or are you saying the vehicle was not insured?

Edited by Juicetin1 on Friday 3rd May 16:54

Edited by Juicetin1 on Friday 3rd May 17:29

[kiethton]

Thanks all - will be done when the solicitor returns.

Only worry is trying to get recompense from the reprobate and was wondering to what reasonable extent I could get the solicitor to lean on their insurer

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Juicetin1 said:

Ask why the insurer of the vehicle will not be meeting the third party claim (you). Its compulsory by law, they can't dodge it. They have to settle the TP claim and then try and recover off their own insured, if they decide theres a reason they want to do that (non-disclosure, misrepresentation etc).
The insurer could only cancel the policy ab initio if the premium hadn't been paid. They would treat it as not taken up.

Nope, there are other reasons why the can cancel ab initio.

[Centurion07]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There are a range of circumstances where the insurers can void the policy ab initio (from the start) and act as if they were never the insurer at all.

Can you expand on this please?

I'm currently trying to get a payout from a TP insurer that have voided their client's policy as they lied about their age to get the cost down.

Annoyingly they aren't based in the UK either so I could be in for a long wait.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Centurion07 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There are a range of circumstances where the insurers can void the policy ab initio (from the start) and act as if they were never the insurer at all.

Can you expand on this please?

I'm currently trying to get a payout from a TP insurer that have voided their client's policy as they lied about their age to get the cost down.

Annoyingly they aren't based in the UK either so I could be in for a long wait.

Yes, lying about age would meet the criteria. Basically they can void a policy if you fail to disclose info that you were aware of, even in error or accidentally, if had they known the truth, they wouldn't have covered you at all. If they would have covered you, albeit at a higher premium, they cannot void the policy if the non disclosure was a genuine error.

Or they can void a policy if it's obvious that you deliberately lied to them in order to obtain cheaper insurance, thus obtained the policy by fraud. Even if they would have covered you at a higher premium had they known the truth.

Obviously everyone knows their age, it cannot be an accidental error. So yes, they can void.

[Centurion07]

Bugger.

So if they decide they're definitely not paying out I guess my only recourse is going to be small claims against the other driver?

[kiethton]

Finally had a reply from my solicitor yesterday, unsurprisingly the money promised has not been paid.....there has been a request for a (token amount) payment plan which has refused.

My solicitor is now pressing the insurer on the reasons for them not indemnifying the TP while in conjunction the debt is being escalated through to recoveries....apparently the debtor (not driver) is a homeowner.....intention being to enforce the judgement and/or get an attachment of earnings...