Non-fault car Insurance claim - Esure court case
Discussion
Backstory - wife and I on a joint policy with Sheila's wheels (Esure). Wife got side swiped in our Golf Feb 2018 - it was more or less clear cut in terms of liability, front end damage to other party, rear quarter damage to ours.
We took many detailed photos of cars, damage, statement of events, road layouts etc and presented them back - within a week or so had email from Esure saying: "The third party insurers have admitted liability for the accident. Your policy excess has been waived and will therefore not be payable on this claim." Car repaired ok, no excess paid, as far as I'm concerned it's all over and done with.
Fast forward to today (6 months later) I receive the below email from Esure. This seems wholly unacceptable - they confirmed to me in writing the third party insurers had accepted liability in black and white. As far as I'm concerned their ability to recover their costs is their problem and business. I don't understand how as per the below email any "case can be decided in favour of the other driver" when liability has already been admitted? and also why the email is referring to this being "my case" - I am not taking anyone to court or recovering any costs from anyone - I'm really rather confused and perplexed - I've never heard of anything like this before, can anyone please shed some light?
[i]Dear Mr XXX,
We are writing in connection with the above claim.
Unfortunately, despite making every attempt to recover our outlays, we have not received any payments and feel that this is the best course of action to achieve settlement of your claim.
If you have your own solicitor acting for you in relation to this incident please can you let me know as soon as possible as UK legislation prevents two separate solicitors acting for the same claim. My phone number is 0161 862 2389.
I will now pass your contact details to Irwin Mitchell who will contact you in due course. In the event that they are unable to speak with you over the phone they will send you a letter detailing what you can expect to happen next along with contact information for your case handler. Within the pack accompanying the letter there will be a Claim Form that you will need to sign and return before Irwin Mitchell can proceed with your case. If you have any difficulty completing the documentation, please call us and we will be happy to assist you. The general contact number for them is 0370 1500 100
Alternatively, if you would prefer not to go through this process please let us know as soon as possible to discuss the implications.
In previous cases we have found that the majority settle without the need for a formal hearing and you will not be asked to attend court. It is important however, that you are willing to attend if asked so the case can be settled. In the worst case scenario and the case is decided in favour of the other driver, the only impact for you would be the loss of your excess (if you have one), any other uninsured losses and a reduction of your No Claims Bonus if it is not protected. All costs relevant to the court case will be paid by the insurers involved.
We will update you when your claim has been settled and a full recovery has been made.
Kind regards[/i]
We took many detailed photos of cars, damage, statement of events, road layouts etc and presented them back - within a week or so had email from Esure saying: "The third party insurers have admitted liability for the accident. Your policy excess has been waived and will therefore not be payable on this claim." Car repaired ok, no excess paid, as far as I'm concerned it's all over and done with.
Fast forward to today (6 months later) I receive the below email from Esure. This seems wholly unacceptable - they confirmed to me in writing the third party insurers had accepted liability in black and white. As far as I'm concerned their ability to recover their costs is their problem and business. I don't understand how as per the below email any "case can be decided in favour of the other driver" when liability has already been admitted? and also why the email is referring to this being "my case" - I am not taking anyone to court or recovering any costs from anyone - I'm really rather confused and perplexed - I've never heard of anything like this before, can anyone please shed some light?
[i]Dear Mr XXX,
We are writing in connection with the above claim.
Unfortunately, despite making every attempt to recover our outlays, we have not received any payments and feel that this is the best course of action to achieve settlement of your claim.
If you have your own solicitor acting for you in relation to this incident please can you let me know as soon as possible as UK legislation prevents two separate solicitors acting for the same claim. My phone number is 0161 862 2389.
I will now pass your contact details to Irwin Mitchell who will contact you in due course. In the event that they are unable to speak with you over the phone they will send you a letter detailing what you can expect to happen next along with contact information for your case handler. Within the pack accompanying the letter there will be a Claim Form that you will need to sign and return before Irwin Mitchell can proceed with your case. If you have any difficulty completing the documentation, please call us and we will be happy to assist you. The general contact number for them is 0370 1500 100
Alternatively, if you would prefer not to go through this process please let us know as soon as possible to discuss the implications.
In previous cases we have found that the majority settle without the need for a formal hearing and you will not be asked to attend court. It is important however, that you are willing to attend if asked so the case can be settled. In the worst case scenario and the case is decided in favour of the other driver, the only impact for you would be the loss of your excess (if you have one), any other uninsured losses and a reduction of your No Claims Bonus if it is not protected. All costs relevant to the court case will be paid by the insurers involved.
We will update you when your claim has been settled and a full recovery has been made.
Kind regards[/i]
Edited by T0M on Saturday 4th August 22:05
Unless I'm missing something obvious they are saying that they are taking the other party/insurer to court and that your testimony will form part of that case?
The bit about whether you have already instructed someone would I presume relate to a civil case you may have decided to pursue, that they would have no knowledge of.
I don't think they're asking you to orchestrate the case, rather that you will be the plaintiff (you subrogated your rights to them when you took out the policy). They will front the cost of the case, on your behalf.
IANAL though so could be way off.
The bit about whether you have already instructed someone would I presume relate to a civil case you may have decided to pursue, that they would have no knowledge of.
I don't think they're asking you to orchestrate the case, rather that you will be the plaintiff (you subrogated your rights to them when you took out the policy). They will front the cost of the case, on your behalf.
IANAL though so could be way off.
Just seems rather odd that I as the customer would have to get involved - they've already confirmed the other insurers have admitted liability for fault - therefore I'm unsure how or why I would ever need to be involved - if the other insurer are not paying up then it has nothing to do with me as the agreed innocent party - there is absolutely no claims for personal injuries (low speed, minor scrape - no parts even needed!) and a Fiat 500 loan car for 3 days supplied by garage repairing our car (all selected by Esure themselves)
They're just priming you to be involved. Worst case scenario is they'll ask you to provide a signed statement about the accident, as it forms the foundation of the claim. They've already said you wouldn't be called to court.
They basically need your (minimal) help to support their claim. It's in your best interests to help them as it will help avoid losing your excess.
They basically need your (minimal) help to support their claim. It's in your best interests to help them as it will help avoid losing your excess.
I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly given this scenario) that excess and no-claims was based on liability - I have been confirmed as innocent due to the third party accepting liability. Why should Esure's ability to chase their debtors be my problem? And if they can't do the business in court to justify the costs they've incurred with the repair, have to pay my excess and lose no-claims when completely innocent? Surely this is an inherent risk they as a business take on when paying costs up-front and then recovering them from a third-party. What incentive to they have to chase when they know their customers will foot the bill of they don't get paid
Fairly sure you might want to do the decent thing and help out here since, if you stick to your "not my problem" line, the judge might decide that actually it's more like 50/50 or worse still, it was somehow your fault. What do you think that will do to your premiums going forwards...?
T0M said:
I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly given this scenario) that excess and no-claims was based on liability - I have been confirmed as innocent due to the third party accepting liability. Why should Esure's ability to chase their debtors be my problem? And if they can't do the business in court to justify the costs they've incurred with the repair, have to pay my excess and lose no-claims when completely innocent? Surely this is an inherent risk they as a business take on when paying costs up-front and then recovering them from a third-party. What incentive to they have to chase when they know their customers will foot the bill of they don't get paid
Your impression was wrong. No claims bonus isn't a bonus you get for being "innocent" - it's a bonus you get for not making any claims (the clue is in the name). The one time you can make a claim and not have it reduced is if your insurer recovers all of its costs from a third party - in which case the end result is the same as if you hadn't made a claim on your own policy at all. If they don't make a full recovery, for whatever reason, your NCD is reduced. So it's in your interests to help them recover their costs by cooperating with the claim.
Your excess meanwhile is simply the part of any claim which your policy doesn't cover and if you claim on your own policy it is payable by you regardless of fault. If you think the other party is liable then it is in theory down to you to pursue the third party's insurers yourself to get your excess back. In practice some insurers will be willing to waive it and recover it on your behalf of they're confident of making a recovery from the third party. It sounds like eSure did this for you - if so it was as a goodwill gesture and not as something they were under an obligation to do. Whether they could require you to pay back the excess now if they don't make a recovery from the third party would depend on their terms and conditions - and any additional terms you agreed to when they offered to waive it.
Not sure where you get the idea that customers will foot the bill for accidents if insurers don't bother to recover costs. A bad car accident could easily cause £10000 of damage to your car. If they don't bother chasing the other insurer you pay an excess of maybe £200 and you lose your NCD so your premium goes up next year by maybe another couple of hundred quid (though in practice you're probably annoyed enough to change insurer, so they actually see no money at all from you next year). So their incentive to chase it up is that they'd quite like their other £9600 back.
In any event it is impossible for your insurer to bring a court claim without at least a minimal amount of assistance from you. The claim would be made in your name as you are ultimately the injured party - so at a minimum you have to sign the claim form or it can't go anywhere. You may also have to give evidence about the circumstances of the accident, especially if the other driver has changed his mind about what happened and is now claiming that it was your fault, or if they're claiming for the cost of the hire car they'll need some evidence from you to show that you needed it (if only to say that you didn't have three other cars of your own that you could have used instead while yours was being fixed). If you're not willing to do that then there's little point them starting a claim.
T0M said:
I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly given this scenario) that excess and no-claims was based on liability
No, it's based on the ability to get someone else to pay, not on liability. An uninsured driver can be liable, but if he has no money and cannot pay, you lose your excess and no-claims.OP, I admit this is a bit of an odd one.
It seems to me that they may have accidentally told you the case had been settled, when actually it hadn’t (I’m making some massive assumptions).
It seems they’ve tried to battle (without bothering you, and keeping out of your hair) with the other insurer for 6 months, but to no avail.
They are now relying on your testimony and evidence to help them out. In theory, this would have happened anyway (if they hadn’t jumped the gun and accidentally told you the case had been settled when in fact it hadn’t).
I understand your point of view, but I think you’ll be better off doing all you can to help them win the case.
Maybe you can make it work in your favour, perhaps getting them to give you a large discount on your next renewal for the inconvenience it’s caused you.
It seems to me that they may have accidentally told you the case had been settled, when actually it hadn’t (I’m making some massive assumptions).
It seems they’ve tried to battle (without bothering you, and keeping out of your hair) with the other insurer for 6 months, but to no avail.
They are now relying on your testimony and evidence to help them out. In theory, this would have happened anyway (if they hadn’t jumped the gun and accidentally told you the case had been settled when in fact it hadn’t).
I understand your point of view, but I think you’ll be better off doing all you can to help them win the case.
Maybe you can make it work in your favour, perhaps getting them to give you a large discount on your next renewal for the inconvenience it’s caused you.
Durzel said:
What inconvenience?
He's already being offered an incentive by means of not being on the hook for the excess and loss of unprotected NCD.
Perhaps the inconvenience of being told in writing that no claim would be made against his policy, he has no liability, the car repaired with no excess paid... only to be given further instructions in relation to the accident SIX MONTHS later?He's already being offered an incentive by means of not being on the hook for the excess and loss of unprotected NCD.
If there was any further action to be made, the OP should have been informed well before 6 months down the line!
roadsmash said:
Durzel said:
What inconvenience?
He's already being offered an incentive by means of not being on the hook for the excess and loss of unprotected NCD.
Perhaps the inconvenience of being told in writing that no claim would be made against his policy, he has no liability, the car repaired with no excess paid... only to be given further instructions in relation to the accident SIX MONTHS later?He's already being offered an incentive by means of not being on the hook for the excess and loss of unprotected NCD.
If there was any further action to be made, the OP should have been informed well before 6 months down the line!
The dispute is almost certainly not over liability, but costs. Therefore, as the tp insurers won't pay, court action has to be taken, but legally this can only be done between the individuals involved in the accident, not the insurers.
All perfectly normal, and the OP needs to work with his insurers. They are not the enemy, they are on his side.
All perfectly normal, and the OP needs to work with his insurers. They are not the enemy, they are on his side.
dacouch said:
A claim was made against his policy when he got his own Insurers to repair the car
If you read my initial post, I am on the insurer’s side, and I advise the OP he needs to work with the insurer to ensure successful outcomes.However, I also note that 6 months with no communication regarding an ongoing claim is shoddy service at best.
Let’s not forget, the OP is a paying customer.
I think the problem here might be that the letter from Esure is badly written and doesn't clearly explain, in very simple terms, what is going on and why.....
"Unfortunately, despite making every attempt to recover our outlays, we have not received any payments and feel that this is the best course of action to achieve settlement of your claim"
That what is ? They haven't even said what the action is at this point in the letter. Hopeless !
"Unfortunately, despite making every attempt to recover our outlays, we have not received any payments and feel that this is the best course of action to achieve settlement of your claim"
That what is ? They haven't even said what the action is at this point in the letter. Hopeless !
Edited by OddCat on Sunday 5th August 17:53
Thanks for the input so far. I will cooperate as much as I'm able, it just doesn't seem right given the previous communication and badly explained email. I've certainly learned a fair bit from the responses and didn't know this was common practice with car insurance.
No accident management car, whiplash claims, etc
I've responded via email and will phone them Tuesday for an update. It almost feels like a balls up, but I doubt I'm that lucky.
No accident management car, whiplash claims, etc
I've responded via email and will phone them Tuesday for an update. It almost feels like a balls up, but I doubt I'm that lucky.
Edited by T0M on Monday 6th August 13:30
Spoken to someone vaguely helpful at esure who apologised for the incorrect formatting and omissions within the email and also said it's a generic email designed to cater for all eventualities. He did confirm however that for whatever reason, if they're unable to recover the costs from the other insurer it would count as 'fault' claim regardless of liability being proven and accepted by the other party, and in their definition of 'fault' isn't related to blame or responsibility, but the ability to recover costs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff