Uninsured driver - Now solicitors involved HELP
Discussion
Hi All,
Long story short. An uninsured driver hit our car and our insurance company (large insurer) fixed our car and all great.
We have now had a letter from a solicitor saying that the insurance company have asked the solicitor to recover the money.
What I don't understand is why the solicitor has our names on the documents so it is us vs mr XXX. Is this normal? Help appreciated.
I thought the insurance company should be the claimant and not us?
IceBoy
Long story short. An uninsured driver hit our car and our insurance company (large insurer) fixed our car and all great.
We have now had a letter from a solicitor saying that the insurance company have asked the solicitor to recover the money.
What I don't understand is why the solicitor has our names on the documents so it is us vs mr XXX. Is this normal? Help appreciated.
I thought the insurance company should be the claimant and not us?
IceBoy
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, it's correct. Only you can sue the tp. Obviously your insurers will pay all the costs, supply the legal bods, issue the papers etc. But you were the victims of the tp's negligence, so you have to sue.
Why would OP want to sue? The insurance has made him whole as is the whole point of insurance. If the insurance company is out of pocket then thats on them. Basically insurers want their money back from the other driver, need to get circumstances from you as you were the one involved in the accident itself. Subrogation rights means the insurers act as you going forwards.
If you are out of pocket, excess paid, hire costs, the solicitor may pursue these for you too.
If you are out of pocket, excess paid, hire costs, the solicitor may pursue these for you too.
BuzzBravado said:
Why would OP want to sue? The insurance has made him whole as is the whole point of insurance. If the insurance company is out of pocket then thats on them.
Because if successful, his insurers will recover their outlay, he'll recover his policy excess that he would have had to pay towards his repairs, and his ncb will be unaffected. Plus, even if he has no excess and protected ncb, it's the right thing to do. His insurers have paid him out, he should cooperate in their attempts to recover their outlay from an uninsured scumbag. graham22 said:
Basically insurers want their money back from the other driver, need to get circumstances from you as you were the one involved in the accident itself. Subrogation rights means the insurers act as you going forwards.
If you are out of pocket, excess paid, hire costs, the solicitor may pursue these for you too.
Subrogation rights do not allow insurers to sue the tp. The OP has to do that, and all paperwork needs to be issued in his name. The insurers will do all the work, all the OP has to do is sign the paperwork and if required, show up at court to give evidence. If you are out of pocket, excess paid, hire costs, the solicitor may pursue these for you too.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Greg the Fish said:
My take on this, fwiw, is that the Solicitor will need to ascertain that it's actually a real claim and not some made up one.
Not that insurance companies, or solicitors for that matter, are all crooks.
Not that insurance companies, or solicitors for that matter, are all crooks.
Are you on glue?
Greg the Fish said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Greg the Fish said:
My take on this, fwiw, is that the Solicitor will need to ascertain that it's actually a real claim and not some made up one.
Not that insurance companies, or solicitors for that matter, are all crooks.
Not that insurance companies, or solicitors for that matter, are all crooks.
Are you on glue?
I think AA are still holding meetings!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BuzzBravado said:
Why would OP want to sue? The insurance has made him whole as is the whole point of insurance. If the insurance company is out of pocket then thats on them.
Because if successful, his insurers will recover their outlay, he'll recover his policy excess that he would have had to pay towards his repairs, and his ncb will be unaffected. Plus, even if he has no excess and protected ncb, it's the right thing to do. His insurers have paid him out, he should cooperate in their attempts to recover their outlay from an uninsured scumbag. As unlikely as it is what if it actually grows legs in court and as OP states its "OP vs X". As small as the risk is, there is always potential the courts could side with the uninsured, which then has consequences for OP.
Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 22 January 09:31
Pinkie15 said:
KungFuPanda said:
I think this thread just highlights just how many people on here know absolutely cock all about motor insurance procedures.
+1And/or the jobs some posters have, or had.
OP, it is you vs the other party, as the other driver didn't crash into the insurance companies hq, but into you.
BuzzBravado said:
Sorry i don't agree with that at all. You pay insurance so that they take the risk not you. Each year you don't claim they win, and the time you claim they lose. That's the entire point. If OP is the one that has his name dragged through courts, then it defeats the point in insurance. OP should play no part whatsoever in the insurance company trying to recover costs that they risked as part of their business model. OP has already stated they have made him whole, so his involvement should end right there.
As unlikely as it is what if it actually grows legs in court and as OP states its "OP vs X". As small as the risk is, there is always potential the courts could side with the uninsured, which then has consequences for OP.
It doesn't matter if the court rules against op. The point is that the insurance company have determined that X has enough assets and that there is sufficient evidence to consider a win likely.As unlikely as it is what if it actually grows legs in court and as OP states its "OP vs X". As small as the risk is, there is always potential the courts could side with the uninsured, which then has consequences for OP.
Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 22 January 09:31
If insurance companies didn't do this, their calculations would change to reflect the increased costs and you and I would all pay more insurance costs as premiums would go up.
Somebody has to pay Buzz, would you rather it be you or X?
BuzzBravado said:
Why would OP want to sue? The insurance has made him whole as is the whole point of insurance. If the insurance company is out of pocket then thats on them.
The insurance will indemnify the policyholder for unrecoverable losses. It does not mean the policyholder does not have to seek recovery of the losses from the third party. What is recovered will go to the insurer to offset the indemnification.Clearly i don't know how insurance works. One things for sure, I wouldn't be happy with my name being used for a fight in court, when I'm not the one trying to recover costs. There is no upside for OP in that.
Maybe my understanding of insurance is too naïve. I had no idea the customer was responsible for making insurance companies whole, I thought that was their fight.
Is there absolutely no chance at all that OP would be called to court or have a judgement against him?
Maybe my understanding of insurance is too naïve. I had no idea the customer was responsible for making insurance companies whole, I thought that was their fight.
Is there absolutely no chance at all that OP would be called to court or have a judgement against him?
BuzzBravado said:
Clearly i don't know how insurance works. One things for sure, I wouldn't be happy with my name being used for a fight in court, when I'm not the one trying to recover costs. There is no upside for OP in that.
Maybe my understanding of insurance is too naïve. I had no idea the customer was responsible for making insurance companies whole, I thought that was their fight.
Is there absolutely no chance at all that OP would be called to court or have a judgement against him?
Wouldn't the OP's "upside" be lower future premiums?Maybe my understanding of insurance is too naïve. I had no idea the customer was responsible for making insurance companies whole, I thought that was their fight.
Is there absolutely no chance at all that OP would be called to court or have a judgement against him?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff