Insurance Company - Liability
Discussion
I'll keep it as short as possible...
Friend of mine had an RTA. Just about manages to get car home.
Calls insurance company next morning, and they tell him a recovery truck will come to take car to secure compound. This happens. He has no idea of identity or location of recovery company or secure compound. He signs no paperwork.
Some months pass whilst accident claim is processed. They write his car off, he buys it back.
Arrives with his own recovery company to collect, and whilst in secure compound car has been smashed into, and £5K of hi-fi equipment stolen.
With 10ft barbed wire topped fences, it's obviously an inside job.
Secure storage denies all liability as they had no contract with car owner.
Insurance denies all liability as the theft took place in the secure compound.
He has since sued the insurance company, citing that the insurance company had a duty of care, since they contracted the subcontrating storage company.
As he signed no paperwork at the time of his car being collected, then i agree, he has no contract with the storage company. Surely his contract lies with the insurance company, who should reimburse him and claim from their contractor.
Furthermore, at a point during his claim being processed, he visited his car and discovered his sat-nav missing. He reported to the insurance company who then paid him out, so they have already displayed a responsibility whilst his car was in secure storage.
He now awaits the arbitration hearing.
Are the insurance company liable to him??? Isn't "duty of care" a liability in law??
Friend of mine had an RTA. Just about manages to get car home.
Calls insurance company next morning, and they tell him a recovery truck will come to take car to secure compound. This happens. He has no idea of identity or location of recovery company or secure compound. He signs no paperwork.
Some months pass whilst accident claim is processed. They write his car off, he buys it back.
Arrives with his own recovery company to collect, and whilst in secure compound car has been smashed into, and £5K of hi-fi equipment stolen.
With 10ft barbed wire topped fences, it's obviously an inside job.
Secure storage denies all liability as they had no contract with car owner.
Insurance denies all liability as the theft took place in the secure compound.
He has since sued the insurance company, citing that the insurance company had a duty of care, since they contracted the subcontrating storage company.
As he signed no paperwork at the time of his car being collected, then i agree, he has no contract with the storage company. Surely his contract lies with the insurance company, who should reimburse him and claim from their contractor.
Furthermore, at a point during his claim being processed, he visited his car and discovered his sat-nav missing. He reported to the insurance company who then paid him out, so they have already displayed a responsibility whilst his car was in secure storage.
He now awaits the arbitration hearing.
Are the insurance company liable to him??? Isn't "duty of care" a liability in law??
Edited by peterguk on Sunday 12th August 14:32
So is he suing them or is it going to arbitration?
There's quite a famous case of a guy whose Ferrari was impounded by the Police, only for it to then go 'missing'. His insurance wouldn't pay out (as the car wasn't in his control). He sued the Police, and lost - it was held that they had no duty of care over the car.
There's quite a famous case of a guy whose Ferrari was impounded by the Police, only for it to then go 'missing'. His insurance wouldn't pay out (as the car wasn't in his control). He sued the Police, and lost - it was held that they had no duty of care over the car.
I'll take a punt, though your friend should get a solicitor or go to CAB for some real advice, armed with any evidence that he has.
From the sequence you describe:
1. Accident
2. Tow away - your friend's car but in the posession of Insurance company.
3. Sat nav stolen - IC has duty of care to him, possibly an action by IC against the compound (depends on their contract). They pay out.
4. IC write-off the car and pay Friend out for vehicle.
So, now it's their car not his car
5. Friend buys back the car which, when he comes to collect, is not what he thought he bought.
So, the first issue is whether the the write-off and paying out included all fittings to the car (which it usually does). If so then they have paid him for the stereo gear and there is no extra loss incurred by him when it was "stolen" from the vehicle.
Second issue,what was in the description of the vehicle sold back to your friend? There is every chance that what we have here is a friend not checking the state of the vehicle prior to making the offer to purchase, then finding out that what they were selling was less than what he thought they were selling. Only if the expensive stereo gear is included in the description / price does he have a case based on the IC not selling what they promised to sell.
From the sequence you describe:
1. Accident
2. Tow away - your friend's car but in the posession of Insurance company.
3. Sat nav stolen - IC has duty of care to him, possibly an action by IC against the compound (depends on their contract). They pay out.
4. IC write-off the car and pay Friend out for vehicle.
So, now it's their car not his car
5. Friend buys back the car which, when he comes to collect, is not what he thought he bought.
So, the first issue is whether the the write-off and paying out included all fittings to the car (which it usually does). If so then they have paid him for the stereo gear and there is no extra loss incurred by him when it was "stolen" from the vehicle.
Second issue,what was in the description of the vehicle sold back to your friend? There is every chance that what we have here is a friend not checking the state of the vehicle prior to making the offer to purchase, then finding out that what they were selling was less than what he thought they were selling. Only if the expensive stereo gear is included in the description / price does he have a case based on the IC not selling what they promised to sell.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff