very confusing insurance riddle!
Discussion
I'll try and make it simple 
- The other evening my fathers ford mondeo broke down
- My mothers vauxhall came to pick it up and toe it.. (using the metal bar style attachment)
- My father whos a named driver on my mothers policy drove the corsa to toe the mondeo home.
- My mother drove the mondeo whos only covered through DOC
- My father caused the mondeo to plow into the back by knocking a curb whislt driving the corsa then sharply braking so he wants to take the liability on my mothers policy...
-Both cars are insured by the same company (lve - liverpool victoria)
- Insurance company are only willing to give my mother a hire car (ford ka)
- For my father apparently isnt entitled to a hire car?
Surely my mothers policy is taking liability for accident which wrote off her corsa and my father who wasnt driving the mondeo should be entitled to a car?
My parents require a sizable car with a towbar to tow a caravan as a like for like replacement for the mondeo otherwise they would probably just deal with it.
Insurers seem to be getting very very confused with where the liabilities held
and whos entitled to what.. It would be easier if different companies were involved.
So whats your view??
- The other evening my fathers ford mondeo broke down
- My mothers vauxhall came to pick it up and toe it.. (using the metal bar style attachment)
- My father whos a named driver on my mothers policy drove the corsa to toe the mondeo home.
- My mother drove the mondeo whos only covered through DOC
- My father caused the mondeo to plow into the back by knocking a curb whislt driving the corsa then sharply braking so he wants to take the liability on my mothers policy...
-Both cars are insured by the same company (lve - liverpool victoria)
- Insurance company are only willing to give my mother a hire car (ford ka)
- For my father apparently isnt entitled to a hire car?
Surely my mothers policy is taking liability for accident which wrote off her corsa and my father who wasnt driving the mondeo should be entitled to a car?
My parents require a sizable car with a towbar to tow a caravan as a like for like replacement for the mondeo otherwise they would probably just deal with it.
Insurers seem to be getting very very confused with where the liabilities held
and whos entitled to what.. It would be easier if different companies were involved.So whats your view??
Edited by gareth.e on Wednesday 4th August 13:11
If the Mondeo went into the back of the Corsa, isn't the Mondeo legally at fault, regardless of who admits liability? Might be wrong there, but I thought that was the case?
If that is the case, shouldn't the Mondeo driver be entitled to a courtesy car then and the person 'in the right' (i.e. the one in the front who was hit) should get one due to it being a non-fault claim.
If that is the case, shouldn't the Mondeo driver be entitled to a courtesy car then and the person 'in the right' (i.e. the one in the front who was hit) should get one due to it being a non-fault claim.
RB Will said:
can I have a video of the event. I'm struggling to see how you crashed the two whilst towing on a metal bar. If it was rope I could understand.
it was down a country road curving down and round a corner when he cliped a bank and slammed the brakes, my mum isnt very quick to react to my dads silly manovers, If i was driving I probably would have saved it but my dad caused the complete upset of the vehicles..Jonboy_t said:
If the Mondeo went into the back of the Corsa, isn't the Mondeo legally at fault, regardless of who admits liability? Might be wrong there, but I thought that was the case?
If that is the case, shouldn't the Mondeo driver be entitled to a courtesy car then and the person 'in the right' (i.e. the one in the front who was hit) should get one due to it being a non-fault claim.
with a rope I would agree, but the mondeo was dragged with a bar as the corsa suddenly knocked the curb and slammed the brakes, the corsa instantly went sideways and up a bank If that is the case, shouldn't the Mondeo driver be entitled to a courtesy car then and the person 'in the right' (i.e. the one in the front who was hit) should get one due to it being a non-fault claim.
it was an impressive sightRegardless if someone admits liability even in an incident which could be interpreted as 50:50, surely it doesnt matter?
edit: but yes the standard is if you go into the back of someone its your fault as you didnt leave enough room
Edited by gareth.e on Wednesday 4th August 13:27
I think I'd be glad of any help LV give you!
I'm sat reading this in an Insurance Broker's and having just read your OP out to my colleagues we're all a little flummoxed ourselves!
Note for the future though - how about your Dad adds your Mum to his policy? Might save her, presumably, claiming on her own policy for crashing into her own car!
I'm sat reading this in an Insurance Broker's and having just read your OP out to my colleagues we're all a little flummoxed ourselves!
Note for the future though - how about your Dad adds your Mum to his policy? Might save her, presumably, claiming on her own policy for crashing into her own car!
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff