Admiral Insurance Payout
Discussion
Just noticed - If, as you say, your car was hit [by someone else], you can make your own claim against the other car driver and their insurer. If they have paid out to a third party (not the owner of the damaged car), unless it was for personal injury, then that’s their problem and they can go after her to recover their money.
OddCat said:
Surely she can't insure a car for which she is not the registered keeper ?
You can insure and drive a car without being the registered keeper or the owner, that's what happens with lease cars.In the event of a crash and write off, you get the payout for the car and then should settle with the owner of the car (lease company or the original poster).
If you do not settle, the owner of the car then take you to court I guess.
Edited by ANJ91 on Saturday 11th July 17:41
ANJ91 said:
You can insure and drive a car without being the registered keeper or the owner, that's what happens with lease cars.
In the event of a crash and write off, you get the payout for the car and then should settle with the owner of the car (lease company or the original poster).
If you do not settle, the owner of the car then take you to court I guess.
I’d agree with this. As the policy holder, she is entitled to the payout. The moral expectation of course is she passes the money to the registered keeper of the written off car. In the event of a crash and write off, you get the payout for the car and then should settle with the owner of the car (lease company or the original poster).
If you do not settle, the owner of the car then take you to court I guess.
Edited by ANJ91 on Saturday 11th July 17:41
This is a civil debt, and as such OP needs to take her to court to recover the money with respect to the value of the written off car.
Easy mistake to make to be fair, and a harsh life lesson akin to a kick in the nuts.
I have no idea if our civil courts have any jurisdiction in Spain? I suspect not.
So it seems that Admiral have paid out to the correct party (unless claims under a multi car policy go to the primary person).
Not sure why the OP's stepdaughter felt the need to lock him out of the account unless it was to stop him intervening in the destination of the proceeds (and she must've had the log ins to to that?).
Feels like the OP and wife are going to have to suck it up. The good news is that she's gone for ever and he'll never see her again. Obviously she's never, ever, going to show her face again. It is therefore likely that this is £6k well spent although, from the girls point of view, she gets £6k but never sees her family ever again.
Just make sure her inheritance (or share of it) goes to the home for unwanted dogs (or whatever).
Not sure why the OP's stepdaughter felt the need to lock him out of the account unless it was to stop him intervening in the destination of the proceeds (and she must've had the log ins to to that?).
Feels like the OP and wife are going to have to suck it up. The good news is that she's gone for ever and he'll never see her again. Obviously she's never, ever, going to show her face again. It is therefore likely that this is £6k well spent although, from the girls point of view, she gets £6k but never sees her family ever again.
Just make sure her inheritance (or share of it) goes to the home for unwanted dogs (or whatever).
I'm not an insurance expert so I may be wrong but paying out to the policy holder rather than the owner of the car doesn't really pass the sniff test
This would leave a massive fraud hole which I'm sure would be massively exploited
Imagine the scenario, I hire a Buggatti Veyron, total it and then personally receive the £1m payout rather than the owner of the car. I might then choose to do a midnight flit to Spain and never be seen again
Insurance is to protect all parties including 3rd, from risk / loss based on a set of insured circumstances. She suffered no loss, so I fail to see how she can get the payout! You lost a car through no fault of your own so surely logically and morally you should get the payout
It just sound absurd to me, I'd take legal advice and see what they say. I'd be speaking to the other parties insurer and probably raise a claim against them?
This would leave a massive fraud hole which I'm sure would be massively exploited
Imagine the scenario, I hire a Buggatti Veyron, total it and then personally receive the £1m payout rather than the owner of the car. I might then choose to do a midnight flit to Spain and never be seen again
Insurance is to protect all parties including 3rd, from risk / loss based on a set of insured circumstances. She suffered no loss, so I fail to see how she can get the payout! You lost a car through no fault of your own so surely logically and morally you should get the payout
It just sound absurd to me, I'd take legal advice and see what they say. I'd be speaking to the other parties insurer and probably raise a claim against them?
Admiral have done nothing wrong in this scenario. It's a family dispute resulting in theft by the Stepdaughter from the OP.
Insurance is a contract between the policy holder and the insurance company. In this case, the policy holder (stepdaughter) has had an accident in which the vehicle she insured (as the policy holder) was written off.
For her own reason (we now know to be fraudulent, but Admiral wouldn't have known this), the Policy holder has removed the OP from "her policy" and instructed Admiral not to deal with him regarding her policy. As the policy is in her name this is, from the insurers viewpoint a legitimate (and not unknown) request as policyholders add and remove people from policies all the time.
Admiral have met the terms of the policy, agreed settlement with the policy holder and issued settlement payment to her. She has absconded with the funds rather than repaying the OP. As it's non fault claim, Admiral will now be subrogating the claim against the party liable for the accident, if they are able to.
Unfortunately, the OP has been taken in by his step daughter who has stolen the money, and this is a separate issue from the car write off.
In the eyes of the law, this is theft and should be reported to the police. If the Op doesn't want to do that, then fair enough, but don't expect any further action to be taken as if the OP isn't treating it as a crime then it wont be recorded or treated as one.
Insurance is a contract between the policy holder and the insurance company. In this case, the policy holder (stepdaughter) has had an accident in which the vehicle she insured (as the policy holder) was written off.
For her own reason (we now know to be fraudulent, but Admiral wouldn't have known this), the Policy holder has removed the OP from "her policy" and instructed Admiral not to deal with him regarding her policy. As the policy is in her name this is, from the insurers viewpoint a legitimate (and not unknown) request as policyholders add and remove people from policies all the time.
Admiral have met the terms of the policy, agreed settlement with the policy holder and issued settlement payment to her. She has absconded with the funds rather than repaying the OP. As it's non fault claim, Admiral will now be subrogating the claim against the party liable for the accident, if they are able to.
Unfortunately, the OP has been taken in by his step daughter who has stolen the money, and this is a separate issue from the car write off.
In the eyes of the law, this is theft and should be reported to the police. If the Op doesn't want to do that, then fair enough, but don't expect any further action to be taken as if the OP isn't treating it as a crime then it wont be recorded or treated as one.
dogz said:
I'm not an insurance expert so I may be wrong but paying out to the policy holder rather than the owner of the car doesn't really pass the sniff test
This would leave a massive fraud hole which I'm sure would be massively exploited
Imagine the scenario, I hire a Buggatti Veyron, total it and then personally receive the £1m payout rather than the owner of the car. I might then choose to do a midnight flit to Spain and never be seen again
Insurance is to protect all parties including 3rd, from risk / loss based on a set of insured circumstances. She suffered no loss, so I fail to see how she can get the payout! You lost a car through no fault of your own so surely logically and morally you should get the payout
It just sound absurd to me, I'd take legal advice and see what they say. I'd be speaking to the other parties insurer and probably raise a claim against them?
Afraid your understanding and perspective of the situation is wrong. You take out insurance to protect yourself in case a certain event takes place.This would leave a massive fraud hole which I'm sure would be massively exploited
Imagine the scenario, I hire a Buggatti Veyron, total it and then personally receive the £1m payout rather than the owner of the car. I might then choose to do a midnight flit to Spain and never be seen again
Insurance is to protect all parties including 3rd, from risk / loss based on a set of insured circumstances. She suffered no loss, so I fail to see how she can get the payout! You lost a car through no fault of your own so surely logically and morally you should get the payout
It just sound absurd to me, I'd take legal advice and see what they say. I'd be speaking to the other parties insurer and probably raise a claim against them?
In your hire car scenario, it is the rental company that will have taken out the insurance, to protect themselves. The condition of that insurance is that it pays out if a renter has an accident. You as the renter cannot take out additional insurance that overlaps with the owners insurance.
In the OP’s case, his mistake was covering his car on his step-daughters policy. If he had covered his step-daughter to drive his car as a named driver on his own policy there would be no issue.
As others have pointed out, the insurance appears to have paid out correctly given the modifications made by the step/daughter. It’s now a civil matter and he will have to sue his step-daughter. I know it seems a bit ‘round the houses’ but it is legally correct.
DJP said:
danhugs said:
My step daughter had her own policy under this multi policy... and requested Admiral pay the settlement into her account.
So it was her policy, but she crashed your car?So what you've got isn't a multi-car policy, more likely a discount for having multiple different policies with the same company? So she took out a new policy to cover her on the borrowed (your) car?
Bolleaux. Can't be arsed to delve any deeper into this heap of crock. Good luck, OP.
OddCat said:
Feels like the OP and wife are going to have to suck it up. The good news is that she's gone for ever and he'll never see her again. Obviously she's never, ever, going to show her face again. It is therefore likely that this is £6k well spent although, from the girls point of view, she gets £6k but never sees her family ever again.
I would wager she'll be back once that £6k runs out. With tales to the mother of how she 'needed' the money. The OP will end up being the villain in this saga.OddCat said:
It might just be me, but still none if this is making any sense.
The car must've been registered in the step daughters name otherwise what car was insured under her individual policy ? Surely she can't insure a car for which she is not the registered keeper ?
You can insure any car you want, even if it's not yours, AFAIK.The car must've been registered in the step daughters name otherwise what car was insured under her individual policy ? Surely she can't insure a car for which she is not the registered keeper ?
steveo3002 said:
what happens if i have a car with a bank loan or dealer finance on it....does the insurance pay out go direct to them or am i trusted to hand it over ?
whats the mother got to say about this ?
You get the payout and if you don’t pay the loan/finance off then you still have the monthly payments to make. whats the mother got to say about this ?
Mr-captain said:
steveo3002 said:
what happens if i have a car with a bank loan or dealer finance on it....does the insurance pay out go direct to them or am i trusted to hand it over ?
whats the mother got to say about this ?
You get the payout and if you don’t pay the loan/finance off then you still have the monthly payments to make. whats the mother got to say about this ?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff