Friend hit cyclist - claiming not her fault. Next steps?

[Black_S3]

If it was me I'd be telling my insurance company about it... The last thing you want is a letter through from your insurance company asking why they've got an injury claim in from an accident with a cyclist that you didn't inform them about.

[Rewe]

Whitester said:

A) Claim on insurance that she woke up in the morning and the windscreen was damaged like that. I told her that this is Insurance fraud and you should never lie to your insurers! If she is going to claim, she needs to be truthful. I advised her against claiming full stop as I am concerned they may write the car off!

Don’t be over dramatic!

If she has windscreen cover with her insurance she only has to ring up, tell them her screen is cracked and ask when they could send someone round to fix it in; in exchange for her paying them the windscreen excess. They will have no interest in how it was caused, ask her to fill out a claim form or write the car off.

It’s not fraud, it’s what windscreen cover is for!

[anonymous-user]

The kid without a helmet hit the windscreen hard enough to smash it and people think there won't be a claim. She should inform her insurers as the least worst option.

I bet that kid is probably in a lot of pain and discomfort as a result of this, what age is the kid?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 23 April 18:30

[Zarco]

JPJPJP said:

If it was my wife’s friend, I would keep out of it

This. Especially when she's clearly an idiot.

[bobtail4x4]

and still no one asks for a photo of the "friend"?

she must be hot, or he wouldnt be asking.

[Tankrizzo]

I don't get the first bit, whether you say a cyclist hit your screen or you "just woke up and it was like that", you're still paying the excess to have it fixed. Makes no bloody difference.

She will get nowhere with the suing thing, actions of a thunder

[Countdown]

Whitester said:

A) Claim on insurance that she woke up in the morning and the windscreen was damaged like that. I told her that this is Insurance fraud and you should never lie to your insurers! If she is going to claim, she needs to be truthful. I advised her against claiming full stop as I am concerned they may write the car off!

Why are you concerned that they might write the car off?

The fact that she’s discussing insurance fraud with somebody who isn’t particularly close to her suggests she’s pretty thick!

[Chainsaw Rebuild]

I would suggest the best course of action would be to bang her and the mechanics heads together.

[The Ors]

Chainsaw Rebuild said:

I would suggest the best course of action would be to bang her and the mechanic.

FTFY

[Chrisgr31]

hutchst said:

Can you explain a bit more about how Occupier's Liability covers negligence not on, near or connected with the property that's insured. And also suing people for damage caused by their children.

Dont know but do know that the legal cover I pay additionally for on my household insurance covers me as a cyclist if I am involved in an at fault claim, having had to claim, although ultimately the guy I rode in to claimed off the cycle club insurance.

[Dangerous Dan]

Thoughts? Your mrs' mate sounds like a right .

[Zarco]

So many people who can't read on this thread

[Sa Calobra]

From what she wants to do it's clear she's not trustworthy on any of what's happened.

The police only take action if it's dangerous driving. Your friend can still be at fault she's just not hit the threshold for prosecution.

Personally I'd let her crack on. She sounds like someone who isnt trustworthy.

[Aretnap]

hutchst said:

Can you explain a bit more about how Occupier's Liability covers negligence not on, near or connected with the property that's insured.

It doesn't. However, the claim would be under the Personal Liability section of a Contents policy, which is different to the Occupiers Liability insurance which comes with Buildings Insurance and covers a much wider range of liabilities connected to your hobbies and everyday activities. (In practice of course Buildings and Contents insurance are commonly sold together as a single product which most people call home insurance)

[Aretnap]

Seight_Returns said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders etc., who most people assume don't have any insurance, often do under a house contents/buildings policy.

My household insurance 3rd party liability cover explicitly excludes claims relating to motoring or cycling incidents. I believe most if not all polices do likewise.

Which insurer, if you don't mind me asking? Excluding motoring liabilities is standard - home and car insurance are designed not to overlap - but I don't think I've ever seen a home policy which excludes cycling liabilities. And I do tend to check, being a cyclist. e-Bikes do sometimes get excluded.

[Aretnap]

Whitester said:

A) Claim on insurance that she woke up in the morning and the windscreen was damaged like that.

Why? Most insurers will actively not care about the reason the windscreen got damaged - it would be the same excess etc whether it was smashed by an unknown vandal, or whether she carelessly drove into a cyclist. So as well as being dishonest, the lie would be completely pointless.

IIRC a handful of insurers do offer to waive the excess for a vandalism claim, so if she's with one of those insurers she might at least have something to gain from the lie... but I'd bet a pound to a penny that the terms of the offer will require her to report the vandalism to the policy... and as she's already reported the accident to the police that's hardly going to work.

[Sa Calobra]

If she claims on the windscreen without mentioning the circumstances and then the cyclist has a developing back problem in the future and instructed an ambulance chaser it might go down as insurance fraud.

Insurers don't care how it was damaged?

They'd think not declaring a rtc with injury as being a big point.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

hutchst said:

Can you explain a bit more about how Occupier's Liability covers negligence not on, near or connected with the property that's insured.

It doesn't. However, the claim would be under the Personal Liability section of a Contents policy,

Yes, you're quite right. I should have said personal liability and not occupiers' liability.

[Seight_Returns]

Aretnap said:

Which insurer, if you don't mind me asking? Excluding motoring liabilities is standard - home and car insurance are designed not to overlap - but I don't think I've ever seen a home policy which excludes cycling liabilities. And I do tend to check, being a cyclist. e-Bikes do sometimes get excluded.

Checked my policy wording (esure) and you're right - no 3rd party exclusion for cycling - only mechanically propelled vehicles.

A previous policy I had did - but can't remember who with.

[Aretnap]

Sa Calobra said:

If she claims on the windscreen without mentioning the circumstances and then the cyclist has a developing back problem in the future and instructed an ambulance chaser it might go down as insurance fraud.

Insurers don't care how it was damaged?

They'd think not declaring a rtc with injury as being a big point.

I meant that they won't care for the purposes of the windscreen claim - it will be covered regardless of the cause. Obviously they will care if a personal injury claim from the cyclist materialises and the woman hadn't told them - which is yet another reason why lying about it would be stupid.

The chance of a personal injury claim materialising is probably reasonably high, even if the cyclist want obviously injured at the time. I've twice come off my bike, declared myself to be fine, just a bit shaken up.... then a few hours later gone to hospital and come home with an arm in plaster. It's amazing what adrenaline can do in the immediate aftermath of an accidental.