Insurance/underage driver
Discussion
Hi
My girlfriend just called saying someone just drove into the car while she was parked. The damage is apparently quite minor, but the driver of the van is underage. The story is:
- she was parked and asked someone in the van to move so she can get out of a spot
- the (child?) jumps into the drivers seat to drive rather than call his brother
- the van reverses into the car
We're obviously most interested in getting the damage sorted. However, because the driver was underage, we're not sure the insurance covers this. She called the police and they're interested in the "crime" but not in any insurance/compensation claim we may have.
Her plan now is to rely on the goodwill of the van owner, to make good the repairs once we've got a repair quote. He doesn't want to go through the insurance because of the driver's age and failing that he wants to claim that he, rather than the child was driving the van.
So that's where it is now. Can anyone advise on the best course of action? I'm certainly not going to lie to the insurance company about who was driving, but will that leave us without being able to claim 3rd party compensation should he go back on the promise to pay for the damage?
Thanks
BAF
My girlfriend just called saying someone just drove into the car while she was parked. The damage is apparently quite minor, but the driver of the van is underage. The story is:
- she was parked and asked someone in the van to move so she can get out of a spot
- the (child?) jumps into the drivers seat to drive rather than call his brother
- the van reverses into the car
We're obviously most interested in getting the damage sorted. However, because the driver was underage, we're not sure the insurance covers this. She called the police and they're interested in the "crime" but not in any insurance/compensation claim we may have.
Her plan now is to rely on the goodwill of the van owner, to make good the repairs once we've got a repair quote. He doesn't want to go through the insurance because of the driver's age and failing that he wants to claim that he, rather than the child was driving the van.
So that's where it is now. Can anyone advise on the best course of action? I'm certainly not going to lie to the insurance company about who was driving, but will that leave us without being able to claim 3rd party compensation should he go back on the promise to pay for the damage?
Thanks
BAF
I would suggest in this situation to hold time. The crime wont go away.
Consider the van drivers perspective, not only will he have to pay the excess on his insurance but he will also have higher premiums in the future. What you need to do is get a repair quote and send a copy to him. Say to him that you dont want your insurance to go up because youve had an accident. Suggest it is better for both parties not to involve the insurance. Its possible this guy will have a couple of hundred pound excess or maybe more. If the damage really is minor and only costs a couple of hundred pound to fix then in reality whats the point of insurance. Make clear that you are not going to commit fraud. However should you wish not to make a point that the child was driving.
Explain the situation and what happened. "i asked the guy inside to move and he reversed but it clipped my car. The damage seemed minor but there was damage and on discussion with the van driver.....Try to make it sound like the same person without saying its the same person.
I would try my first paragraph as the best way out however.
Consider the van drivers perspective, not only will he have to pay the excess on his insurance but he will also have higher premiums in the future. What you need to do is get a repair quote and send a copy to him. Say to him that you dont want your insurance to go up because youve had an accident. Suggest it is better for both parties not to involve the insurance. Its possible this guy will have a couple of hundred pound excess or maybe more. If the damage really is minor and only costs a couple of hundred pound to fix then in reality whats the point of insurance. Make clear that you are not going to commit fraud. However should you wish not to make a point that the child was driving.
Explain the situation and what happened. "i asked the guy inside to move and he reversed but it clipped my car. The damage seemed minor but there was damage and on discussion with the van driver.....Try to make it sound like the same person without saying its the same person.
I would try my first paragraph as the best way out however.
You need to tell your insurer (but do not have to make a claim) for two reasons.
Firstly you will have to anyway at renewal (you have suffered a loss).
Secondly it could be considered that you refused the insurers indemnity by not informing them. Thus if the van driver does get it sorted, you then can't rely on the insurer to fix it (although this is rare).
Otherwise the above is very sound advice.
Firstly you will have to anyway at renewal (you have suffered a loss).
Secondly it could be considered that you refused the insurers indemnity by not informing them. Thus if the van driver does get it sorted, you then can't rely on the insurer to fix it (although this is rare).
Otherwise the above is very sound advice.
if persued through the police line, there is a very similar situation to this....
If someone stole my car and had an accident in it, does my insurance cover the 3rd party that gets hit???
reason i ask this is because there will be one person getting done here possibly 2. The underage driver for sure, but he could also be charged with TWOC, or, the owner has to say he let him.
my guess is the van will have been driven by the minor with 3rd party cover under the owners policy.
If someone stole my car and had an accident in it, does my insurance cover the 3rd party that gets hit???
reason i ask this is because there will be one person getting done here possibly 2. The underage driver for sure, but he could also be charged with TWOC, or, the owner has to say he let him.
my guess is the van will have been driven by the minor with 3rd party cover under the owners policy.
The 'driver' of the van is uninsured against third party risks being disqualified by reason of age so what Insurance the owner has won't pay out.
Two courses:
Make claim under Motor Insurance Bureau procedure damage by uninsured driver (See details on Web)
or
Small claims Court (or settlement direct by van owner).
Have nothing to do with having van owner saying he was the driver...........play it straight, lies have an awful habit or rebounding....
dvd
dvd
Two courses:
Make claim under Motor Insurance Bureau procedure damage by uninsured driver (See details on Web)
or
Small claims Court (or settlement direct by van owner).
Have nothing to do with having van owner saying he was the driver...........play it straight, lies have an awful habit or rebounding....
dvd
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
The 'driver' of the van is uninsured against third party risks being disqualified by reason of age so what Insurance the owner has won't pay out.
Two courses:
Make claim under Motor Insurance Bureau procedure damage by uninsured driver (See details on Web)
or
Small claims Court (or settlement direct by van owner).
Have nothing to do with having van owner saying he was the driver...........play it straight, lies have an awful habit or rebounding....
dvd
dvd
The MIB only deal as a last restort with untraced drivers (under the Untraced Drivers' Agreement). Insurers step in an effectively act as the MIB in caes like this.Two courses:
Make claim under Motor Insurance Bureau procedure damage by uninsured driver (See details on Web)
or
Small claims Court (or settlement direct by van owner).
Have nothing to do with having van owner saying he was the driver...........play it straight, lies have an awful habit or rebounding....
dvd
dvd
If the van had an insurance certificate issued by an insurer, and they had not issued a Statutory Declaration, then the insurer is liable under the Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 6. Even if being driven by an unauthorised driver.
Even if they escaped the RTA, then they may very well be liable under Article 75 of the MIB agreement. Even if cover has lapsed you can still be liable as "nearest proximity" insurer.
It just makes sense not to have to burden the MIB with loads of claims where the insurer is known, and they can take the place of the MIB. Swings and roundabouts on the costs.
This has nothing to do with the underage driver being "uninsured" or any of the criminal stuff. The third party would get paid out.
The bit we are after is Section 151, "Duty of insurers or persons giving security to satisfy judgment against persons insured or secured against third-party risks"
2a) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or , as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.
Even if the car is stolen, an insurer pays the Thrid Party. There are however exclusions on passengers knowingly travelling the stolen car.
Edited by Noger on Thursday 1st November 09:43
Just confirm Noger (for it seems you are involved with the Insurance Business):
In the case in question whilst the owner has Insurance for his use of the vehicle alone and valid, despite the fact that the youth is disqualified by reason of age from any Insurance cover, the fact that owner has Insurance then his Company will pay out to the third party?
Sory but got to get my head round that one?
dvd
In the case in question whilst the owner has Insurance for his use of the vehicle alone and valid, despite the fact that the youth is disqualified by reason of age from any Insurance cover, the fact that owner has Insurance then his Company will pay out to the third party?
Sory but got to get my head round that one?
dvd
Yes, spot on, that is how it works. Even if the van had been stolen, the insurers would still pay out to the third party.
It might seem odd, but it keeps costs down. Rather than insurers all giving money to the MIB, who then deal with the claim, they deal with it themselves.
This is both statutory (RTA 88 151 as above) which would be the case for the unauthorised driver, or by agreement.
It might seem odd, but it keeps costs down. Rather than insurers all giving money to the MIB, who then deal with the claim, they deal with it themselves.
This is both statutory (RTA 88 151 as above) which would be the case for the unauthorised driver, or by agreement.
Noger said:
You need to tell your insurer (but do not have to make a claim) for two reasons.
Firstly you will have to anyway at renewal (you have suffered a loss).
I don't understand why the insurance company requires to know about matters that don't concern them. Of of course, so they can put premiums up even though no claim has occurred, silly me.Firstly you will have to anyway at renewal (you have suffered a loss).
Noger said:
Yes, spot on, that is how it works. Even if the van had been stolen, the insurers would still pay out to the third party.
It might seem odd, but it keeps costs down. Rather than insurers all giving money to the MIB, who then deal with the claim, they deal with it themselves.
This is both statutory (RTA 88 151 as above) which would be the case for the unauthorised driver, or by agreement.
WEll you learn something every day!It might seem odd, but it keeps costs down. Rather than insurers all giving money to the MIB, who then deal with the claim, they deal with it themselves.
This is both statutory (RTA 88 151 as above) which would be the case for the unauthorised driver, or by agreement.
I was wrong then.
Thanks
I believe that the first plan would be to deal directly with the van owner.
They probably realise that they and their kid have a good chance of being in the proverbial if this situation is passed to the authorities.
In essence, and in legal terms the underage driver has caused you damage and thus you would be entitled to compensation. If they are old enough to drive, then they should be old enough to face the music!
Indeed, at court should the unlikely day it got that far they and their parents would get a scathing from the court and have to pay up.
They probably realise that they and their kid have a good chance of being in the proverbial if this situation is passed to the authorities.
In essence, and in legal terms the underage driver has caused you damage and thus you would be entitled to compensation. If they are old enough to drive, then they should be old enough to face the music!
Indeed, at court should the unlikely day it got that far they and their parents would get a scathing from the court and have to pay up.
Mr2Mike said:
Noger said:
You need to tell your insurer (but do not have to make a claim) for two reasons.
Firstly you will have to anyway at renewal (you have suffered a loss).
I don't understand why the insurance company requires to know about matters that don't concern them. Of of course, so they can put premiums up even though no claim has occurred, silly me.Firstly you will have to anyway at renewal (you have suffered a loss).
If you have 4 accidents in a year, cause: hit while parked, wouldnt you question your parking skills??
Its just to keep a track of potential claims and track losses.
We're not all bastards
Noger ... and all.
As stated I found it difficult to believe that an Insurance Company would cover the damage by a driver disqualified by reason of age.
So........I made enquiry of my Insurance Company on the facts stated. Their reply confirms Noger's submission:
Quote:
As we understand matters, the insurance company of vehicle A would need to meet B's claim as they would be deemed to be the Road Traffic Act insurer (section 151), whether the driver had permision to drive or not.
A's insurers would possibly look to recover any amounts paid from A/the driver.
It would not make a difference if the insurance was Comprehensive or Third Party only.
Quote ends
So thanks Nodger for adding to my education.
dvd
As stated I found it difficult to believe that an Insurance Company would cover the damage by a driver disqualified by reason of age.
So........I made enquiry of my Insurance Company on the facts stated. Their reply confirms Noger's submission:
Quote:
As we understand matters, the insurance company of vehicle A would need to meet B's claim as they would be deemed to be the Road Traffic Act insurer (section 151), whether the driver had permision to drive or not.
A's insurers would possibly look to recover any amounts paid from A/the driver.
It would not make a difference if the insurance was Comprehensive or Third Party only.
Quote ends
So thanks Nodger for adding to my education.
dvd
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff