Theoretical Insurance Question
Discussion
Imagine that a car thief steals your car. He’s driving it and you run out to try and stop him.
He negligently drives at you and causes injury to you. For the sake of argument, he is 100% at fault for the injury caused to you.
You’re the policyholder. He TWOC’d your car and caused you injury.
Given that there is a live policy on the vehicle I presume if you were to present a claim for personal injury against the thief, your own insurers would have to deal with the claim under their duty under the Road Traffic Act?
He negligently drives at you and causes injury to you. For the sake of argument, he is 100% at fault for the injury caused to you.
You’re the policyholder. He TWOC’d your car and caused you injury.
Given that there is a live policy on the vehicle I presume if you were to present a claim for personal injury against the thief, your own insurers would have to deal with the claim under their duty under the Road Traffic Act?
I would imagine so. The thief clearly has a liability to you, and the Road Traffic Act requires the insurer to cover his liabilities as if he were insured by the policy.
Someone will probably argue that you can't make a liability claim against your own policy; however the RTA says that the policy must cover "any liability"* that the scrote has, it doesn't say "any liability, except a liability to the policyholder". And the RTA trumps any term which might be in the policy itself.
*(There are actually a couple of exceptions - eg liabilities to passengers who knowingly allow themselves to be carried in a stolen car need not be covered - but none which I can see that would be relevant here)
Someone will probably argue that you can't make a liability claim against your own policy; however the RTA says that the policy must cover "any liability"* that the scrote has, it doesn't say "any liability, except a liability to the policyholder". And the RTA trumps any term which might be in the policy itself.
*(There are actually a couple of exceptions - eg liabilities to passengers who knowingly allow themselves to be carried in a stolen car need not be covered - but none which I can see that would be relevant here)
The policy covers unlimited third party injury, but the policyholder is not a third party. If the thief hit your dad who was trying to stop him, and you were the policyholder, then yes, he could claim against your policy. But you can't.
Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The policy covers unlimited third party injury, but the policyholder is not a third party. If the thief hit your dad who was trying to stop him, and you were the policyholder, then yes, he could claim against your policy. But you can't.
Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
These two scenarios are entirely different. In both cases the at fault party is you personally - by your own muppetry you have damaged your own property. So of course your liability insurance will not cover the damage - you have no liability to yourself, because you cannot sue yourself for the damage that you cause to your own property.Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
The scenario in the OP is different as the negligent person is not you bit a different person who is driving the car. He (trivially) has a liability to you for causing you injury, and the insurance company is required to cover his liabilities due to the Road Traffic Act. Can you point to the part of the RTA which says "all liabilities - except those that happen to be to the policyholder"? I can't find it.
Aretnap said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The policy covers unlimited third party injury, but the policyholder is not a third party. If the thief hit your dad who was trying to stop him, and you were the policyholder, then yes, he could claim against your policy. But you can't.
Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
These two scenarios are entirely different. In both cases the at fault party is you personally - by your own muppetry you have damaged your own property. So of course your liability insurance will not cover the damage - you have no liability to yourself, because you cannot sue yourself for the damage that you cause to your own property.Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
The scenario in the OP is different as the negligent person is not you bit a different person who is driving the car. He (trivially) has a liability to you for causing you injury, and the insurance company is required to cover his liabilities due to the Road Traffic Act. Can you point to the part of the RTA which says "all liabilities - except those that happen to be to the policyholder"? I can't find it.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a liability on the part of the negligent person, just that the insurer doesn't have to cover it as their liability only extends to third parties in relation to the policy held. The policy holder is not a third party in relation to the policy.
vonhosen said:
The insurer is required to cover third party liabilities in respect of claims against the policy. The person in the OP would not be a third party in relation to that insurance policy that they wished to claim under, they are the policy holder.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a liability on the part of the negligent person, just that the insurer doesn't have to cover it as their liability only extends to third parties in relation to the policy held. The policy holder is not a third party in relation to the policy.
I'm not convinced. For starters the person in the OP is not actually making a claim against the policy. His claim is against the negligent driver, and the policy is required to cover the negligent driver's liabilities. It's not directly a claim against his own policy - the policy is one step removed from his claim, which weakens the semantic argument about who is a "third party".That doesn't mean that there isn't a liability on the part of the negligent person, just that the insurer doesn't have to cover it as their liability only extends to third parties in relation to the policy held. The policy holder is not a third party in relation to the policy.
Or consider a slightly different scenario which takes out the complication of the driver being a thief. My mate Jim lends me his car, and I'm named as a driver on his policy. I drive it carelessly and knock over a random pedestrian in the street. Not to worry, I'm covered by the policy. But if that random pedestrian coincidentally turns out to be Jim walking his dog then suddenly the cover doesn't apply because Jim isn't a third party? Then we're both out of luck - if it's a bad accident I lose my home and Jim doesn't get proper compensation for his injuries? Seriously?
Apart from the obvious injustice, I think that scenario would contravene the Road Traffic Act, which is fairly explicit about what the policy is required to cover
RTA said:
the policy... must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place...
Note "any liability which may be incurred by him", not "any liability except liabilities to these people..." or any other form of words. So what law allows me to drive around with a policy which doesn't cover my liabilities to Jim? It seems to me that if you were correct, everyone who is driving as a named driver on someone else's policy would be breaking the law, which obviously cannot be the case.Aretnap said:
vonhosen said:
The insurer is required to cover third party liabilities in respect of claims against the policy. The person in the OP would not be a third party in relation to that insurance policy that they wished to claim under, they are the policy holder.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a liability on the part of the negligent person, just that the insurer doesn't have to cover it as their liability only extends to third parties in relation to the policy held. The policy holder is not a third party in relation to the policy.
I'm not convinced. For starters the person in the OP is not actually making a claim against the policy. His claim is against the negligent driver, and the policy is required to cover the negligent driver's liabilities. It's not directly a claim against his own policy - the policy is one step removed from his claim, which weakens the semantic argument about who is a "third party".That doesn't mean that there isn't a liability on the part of the negligent person, just that the insurer doesn't have to cover it as their liability only extends to third parties in relation to the policy held. The policy holder is not a third party in relation to the policy.
Or consider a slightly different scenario which takes out the complication of the driver being a thief. My mate Jim lends me his car, and I'm named as a driver on his policy. I drive it carelessly and knock over a random pedestrian in the street. Not to worry, I'm covered by the policy. But if that random pedestrian coincidentally turns out to be Jim walking his dog then suddenly the cover doesn't apply because Jim isn't a third party? Then we're both out of luck - if it's a bad accident I lose my home and Jim doesn't get proper compensation for his injuries? Seriously?
Apart from the obvious injustice, I think that scenario would contravene the Road Traffic Act, which is fairly explicit about what the policy is required to cover
RTA said:
the policy... must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place...
Note "any liability which may be incurred by him", not "any liability except liabilities to these people..." or any other form of words. So what law allows me to drive around with a policy which doesn't cover my liabilities to Jim? It seems to me that if you were correct, everyone who is driving as a named driver on someone else's policy would be breaking the law, which obviously cannot be the case.vonhosen said:
Aretnap said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The policy covers unlimited third party injury, but the policyholder is not a third party. If the thief hit your dad who was trying to stop him, and you were the policyholder, then yes, he could claim against your policy. But you can't.
Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
These two scenarios are entirely different. In both cases the at fault party is you personally - by your own muppetry you have damaged your own property. So of course your liability insurance will not cover the damage - you have no liability to yourself, because you cannot sue yourself for the damage that you cause to your own property.Same for car damage. You own 2 cars, and going into your driveway, you crash one into the other one which is parked. You need comp cover on both to claim for both lots of damage. If the parked car was only covered third party, you can't claim off your comp policy on the car you were driving as a third party because that car was hit. The policyholder can never be his own third party.
If you drive your car into your own garage door, your car insurance won't pay for the garage door as third party damage. You need to claim for that on your buildings insurance. Drive into someone else's garage door, and then you are covered.
The scenario in the OP is different as the negligent person is not you bit a different person who is driving the car. He (trivially) has a liability to you for causing you injury, and the insurance company is required to cover his liabilities due to the Road Traffic Act. Can you point to the part of the RTA which says "all liabilities - except those that happen to be to the policyholder"? I can't find it.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a liability on the part of the negligent person, just that the insurer doesn't have to cover it as their liability only extends to third parties in relation to the policy held. The policy holder is not a third party in relation to the policy.
Aretnap, it's no different from the policyholder being a passenger whilst his wife or friend or whoever, who is a named driver, is driving. Driver crashes the car, passenger (policyholder) is seriously injured. They cannot claim off the policy in the way any other passenger could. Because they aren't a third party. And the policy only covers tp liability. The policyholder, as a passenger and victim, is free to sue the driver personally for injuries sustained due to the driver's negligence.
What is the situation with the TWOCer?
Was he/she caught?
Do they have insurance on their own car ( if they have one) and what are the terms re driving other vehicles? Are they covered for all vehicles but only in emergency? Etc.
These and other unknowns will influence how claims against the TWOCer might be pursued.
There are a lot of ifs and buts to cover but basically it boils down to vanHosen’s comments.
If no license/insurance then a civil claim for injury compensation seems the likely route, however if he has insurance then third party claim via them could be possible.
Will any money be forthcoming? Depends on the TWOCer’s situation and is there scope for claims under Criminal Compensation?
Does anyone know of any similar ( as near as possible) cases where an end result was achieved?
Was he/she caught?
Do they have insurance on their own car ( if they have one) and what are the terms re driving other vehicles? Are they covered for all vehicles but only in emergency? Etc.
These and other unknowns will influence how claims against the TWOCer might be pursued.
There are a lot of ifs and buts to cover but basically it boils down to vanHosen’s comments.
If no license/insurance then a civil claim for injury compensation seems the likely route, however if he has insurance then third party claim via them could be possible.
Will any money be forthcoming? Depends on the TWOCer’s situation and is there scope for claims under Criminal Compensation?
Does anyone know of any similar ( as near as possible) cases where an end result was achieved?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap, it's no different from the policyholder being a passenger whilst his wife or friend or whoever, who is a named driver, is driving. Driver crashes the car, passenger (policyholder) is seriously injured. They cannot claim off the policy in the way any other passenger could. Because they aren't a third party. And the policy only covers tp liability. The policyholder, as a passenger and victim, is free to sue the driver personally for injuries sustained due to the driver's negligence.
And I'm arguing that in that situation the policy must cover the driver's liabilities to the passenger. Because (a) of course it damn well should and (b) because the Road Traffic Act says that it has to. I think you're getting too hung up on the words "third party" and not looking at what the RTA actually says about what has to be covered. ( Link)the law said:
the policy must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road
(It then lists some exceptions, none of which are relevant here)Once again, it says that the policy must cover the driver for "any liability... to any person". Not "liability to third parties" (whatever that might mean), or "liability to any person, except the person who happens to be the policyholder". So again, what law do you think would allow me, as a named driver, to drive with a policy which doesn't cover my liabilities to my passengers?
vonhosen said:
Your TWOCer isn't specified in the policy. The insurance isn't indemnifying him specifically as he isn't specified on it. It's indemnifying the policyholder's liabilities (when it's TWOCd) due to it being on the road & he can't be a third party in his own indemnity.
That's not how it works in the case of the TWOCcer. The insurer isn't paying out to the TWOCcers victims because it's covering the policyholder's liabilities - the policyholder isn't liable for the bad driving of a toerag who has stolen his car. Rather it's paying out because in spite of the policy terms the RTA requires the insurer to pay out for liabilities of any driver, whether specific on the policy or not, as one of a number of mechanisms to ensure that victims of uninsured drivers aren't left with no means of redress. (The very rough principle being that the insurer with the closest connection with the car pays, and if the car has no insurance at all the MIB pays). Section 151 of the RTA covers it.The Policyholder isn't therefore claiming under his own indemnity; he's claiming under the TWOCcer's (which isn't technically an indemnity as the insurer can then pursue its outlay from the TWOCcer, not that they'll usually have much luck).
Aretnap said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap, it's no different from the policyholder being a passenger whilst his wife or friend or whoever, who is a named driver, is driving. Driver crashes the car, passenger (policyholder) is seriously injured. They cannot claim off the policy in the way any other passenger could. Because they aren't a third party. And the policy only covers tp liability. The policyholder, as a passenger and victim, is free to sue the driver personally for injuries sustained due to the driver's negligence.
And I'm arguing that in that situation the policy must cover the driver's liabilities to the passenger. Because (a) of course it damn well should and (b) because the Road Traffic Act says that it has to. I think you're getting too hung up on the words "third party" and not looking at what the RTA actually says about what has to be covered. ( Link)the law said:
the policy must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road
(It then lists some exceptions, none of which are relevant here)Once again, it says that the policy must cover the driver for "any liability... to any person". Not "liability to third parties" (whatever that might mean), or "liability to any person, except the person who happens to be the policyholder". So again, what law do you think would allow me, as a named driver, to drive with a policy which doesn't cover my liabilities to my passengers?
Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
Sec 145(3)(a) .......the policy must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability.
Your TWOCer isn't specified or indemnified by the policy, the policyholder in the OP is indemnified by the policy. The policyholder is not a third party to the policy, he can't claim against his own indemnity/policy under third party risks because he isn't a third party to the indemnification under the policy.
If there is a claim it's a claim held against the policyholder.
It goes as a claim on his claims history, not the TWOCers.
The issue of liability by the TWOCer is a separate issue for which he can individually be sued, but the policy will not cover the TWOCer being sued by the policyholder.
Sec 151
Duty of insurers or persons giving security to satisfy judgment against persons insured or secured against third-party risks.
That person insured or secured against third party risks is the policyholder, he isn't a third party.
Hey ho, I'm no insurance expert though, that's just how I see it.
Speak to an insurance expert or lawyer in that field.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 10th October 20:02
Aretnap, vonhosen beat me to it. The part of the RTA you refer to doesn't need to refer to third parties, because it's within the overall section that deals with third party liability.
The policyholder cannot be the third party, because then effectively he's claiming against himself. The fact that the policyholder has insurance to pay any third party injured during the negligent operation of the policyholders vehicle, either by the policyholder themselves or someone nominated to drive by the policyholder, doesn't alter the fact that legally, when a tp claims against your policy, they are effectively claiming against the policyholder. It's just that the policyholder has insurance to deal with that eventuality.
The policyholder cannot be the third party, because then effectively he's claiming against himself. The fact that the policyholder has insurance to pay any third party injured during the negligent operation of the policyholders vehicle, either by the policyholder themselves or someone nominated to drive by the policyholder, doesn't alter the fact that legally, when a tp claims against your policy, they are effectively claiming against the policyholder. It's just that the policyholder has insurance to deal with that eventuality.
Very similar question but slightly different
My son (Learner) has just insured his car but I'm on the policy as a named driver
If he was to have an accident (better bloody not) that resulted in me being paralysed (again better bloody not) could I claim against the policy for medical & aftercare??
My son (Learner) has just insured his car but I'm on the policy as a named driver
If he was to have an accident (better bloody not) that resulted in me being paralysed (again better bloody not) could I claim against the policy for medical & aftercare??
T6 vanman said:
Very similar question but slightly different
My son (Learner) has just insured his car but I'm on the policy as a named driver
If he was to have an accident (better bloody not) that resulted in me being paralysed (again better bloody not) could I claim against the policy for medical & aftercare??
Yes. But if you're driving and he's paralysed because of your bad driving, he's out of luck. My son (Learner) has just insured his car but I'm on the policy as a named driver
If he was to have an accident (better bloody not) that resulted in me being paralysed (again better bloody not) could I claim against the policy for medical & aftercare??
However, if you're the one supervising, and he crashes, your injury claim might be reduced if they found any contributory negligence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff