Insurance voided from inception - Am I up the creek?
Discussion
Hi all,
I'm hoping for some advice from insurance people/experts, any all help/advice massively appreciated
Long story short, both of my cars were smashed into in the middle of the night whilst I was alseep, the driver of the third pary vehicle causing the incident did the honourable thing and fled
. The Police are investigating and the suspect (who was insured to drive the vehicle) is being interviewed/arreseted for this offence.
More details here.
The insurance company have (I believe) not paid out for the third parties vehicle (it was reported stolen....
), but the reported theft was treated as "suspicioius" by the Police (hence the 6 month investigation) and it has subsequently come to light that material facts were not disclosed at the point of taking out the insurance.
If the 3rd party insurere was to "void the policy from inception" (on the basis of failing to disclose material facts) does this leave me paddling up the creek with no paddle? Can they really wash their hands of all liability/responsibility in these circumstances? Does it make any difference that this has only come to light AFTER the incidents above?
Does it make any difference if the suspect is convicted criminally or via civil process?
Thanks very much Stats
I'm hoping for some advice from insurance people/experts, any all help/advice massively appreciated
Long story short, both of my cars were smashed into in the middle of the night whilst I was alseep, the driver of the third pary vehicle causing the incident did the honourable thing and fled
. The Police are investigating and the suspect (who was insured to drive the vehicle) is being interviewed/arreseted for this offence.More details here.
The insurance company have (I believe) not paid out for the third parties vehicle (it was reported stolen....
), but the reported theft was treated as "suspicioius" by the Police (hence the 6 month investigation) and it has subsequently come to light that material facts were not disclosed at the point of taking out the insurance. If the 3rd party insurere was to "void the policy from inception" (on the basis of failing to disclose material facts) does this leave me paddling up the creek with no paddle? Can they really wash their hands of all liability/responsibility in these circumstances? Does it make any difference that this has only come to light AFTER the incidents above?
Does it make any difference if the suspect is convicted criminally or via civil process?
Thanks very much Stats
Perhaps I should not comment, but I *think* you as a 3rd Party *might* be covered.
Have you phoned his insurance?
Alternatively, do you have a policy that covers being hit by an unisured driver, so you don't take the 'claim' hit?
Worst case, you have to take him to court ... that will be a long process and agro.
HTH
Have you phoned his insurance?
Alternatively, do you have a policy that covers being hit by an unisured driver, so you don't take the 'claim' hit?
Worst case, you have to take him to court ... that will be a long process and agro.
HTH
Fizpop said:
More knowledgable folk on here will be along in a moment, but as far as I know, the insurance company can not avoid their third party duty to you. They will pay you out and potentially chase the other party for reimbursement.
Yes, I thought this was the case too.OP are you sure you were inside? Not sitting in the car? And you now have whiplash?!?!?!?
Look up 'RTA insurer' and 'Article 75 insurer', I can't remember the exact details, but you may still be covered by their insurer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer
Edited by budgie smuggler on Wednesday 3rd April 12:24
creampuff said:
Yes, I thought this was the case too.
OP are you sure you were inside? Not sitting in the car? And you now have whiplash?!?!?!?
Should we really be encouraging this sort of behaviour under any circumstance? OP are you sure you were inside? Not sitting in the car? And you now have whiplash?!?!?!?
Be interested to hear the insurance bods views on this.. do third-party obligations apply if the insurance company would never have offered a policy at inception with the full facts known?
I think it depends on the manner of the void.
If the other chap basically commited fraud to get the insurance then the insurance company may have no liability at all.
They are 'victims' too.
I would further guess it would depend whether the 'material facts' would have increased the premium or resulted in insurance being refused.
If the other chap basically commited fraud to get the insurance then the insurance company may have no liability at all.
They are 'victims' too.
I would further guess it would depend whether the 'material facts' would have increased the premium or resulted in insurance being refused.
As stared, I don't think they can avoid their third party liability to you, provided there was some policy in place at the time, ie paid for etc.
Are you fully comp on your cars? Not ideal, but if so, just let your insurer deal with it all.
Btw, do you always park on the road, and if so were your insurers aware of this when you set up your insurance, ie not garaged or on drive? Hopefully you won't have any issues, I hope you get it sorted it must be gutting to have that happen. There's some proper scumbags about.
Are you fully comp on your cars? Not ideal, but if so, just let your insurer deal with it all.
Btw, do you always park on the road, and if so were your insurers aware of this when you set up your insurance, ie not garaged or on drive? Hopefully you won't have any issues, I hope you get it sorted it must be gutting to have that happen. There's some proper scumbags about.
3p's insurer should pay - eventually - but may insist on a County Court judgement against the 3p. I was hit by a driver whose insurance was voided and it took me a year to be compensated. My insurer initially wanted me to go through the 'legal expenses' cover on my policy but eventually they recovered both their loss and mine from 3p's insurer. Took a year to complete.
Hi, thanks for speedy replies 
I'm looking up 'RTA insurer' and 'Article 75 insurer' now... but as I'm not a legal type I'm more than a little
The Police talked of 'nummerous' offences so I'm guessing the insurance would have been refused rather than just have been a bit more expensive. While this is only a guess its the worst case (I think) so happy to go with it as most things seem to be going down that path with this issue.
Stats
ETA: My vehicles both correctly insured for on road storage thankfully
I'm looking up 'RTA insurer' and 'Article 75 insurer' now... but as I'm not a legal type I'm more than a little
The Police talked of 'nummerous' offences so I'm guessing the insurance would have been refused rather than just have been a bit more expensive. While this is only a guess its the worst case (I think) so happy to go with it as most things seem to be going down that path with this issue.
Stats
ETA: My vehicles both correctly insured for on road storage thankfully
Edited by Stats2909 on Wednesday 3rd April 12:38
I understood that even if insurance was voided due to omission of material facts, third party cover would not be affected.
Hopefully LoonR1 or somebody similar will be along soon to clear it all up. I've been following the sorry tale since it began being a local fellow S owner, driving past your car regularly. Really hope it gets sorted soon. Where will you take it for repairs?
Hopefully LoonR1 or somebody similar will be along soon to clear it all up. I've been following the sorry tale since it began being a local fellow S owner, driving past your car regularly. Really hope it gets sorted soon. Where will you take it for repairs?
with the undisclosed facts it would normally depend on whether the insurance company would of covered the driver/vehicle from the start or whether the facts would of meant they are in breach of their contract.
A RTA insurer will cover your costs once an A&A form is signed or a C&I form is signed by the policy holder(their client) The form basically allows the insurance company to attempt to recover costs from the driver.
Article 75 would mean the third party insurance company will only look to pay out for any uninsured losses that have resulted as of the claim. so your excess would be recovered however your insurance company would not be able to claim their outlay for repairs or the total loss.
this is a very quick write up
so im sure anything i have missed or any errors made will be picked up by R1/nog/others
A RTA insurer will cover your costs once an A&A form is signed or a C&I form is signed by the policy holder(their client) The form basically allows the insurance company to attempt to recover costs from the driver.
Article 75 would mean the third party insurance company will only look to pay out for any uninsured losses that have resulted as of the claim. so your excess would be recovered however your insurance company would not be able to claim their outlay for repairs or the total loss.
this is a very quick write up
so im sure anything i have missed or any errors made will be picked up by R1/nog/othersSpeculative example.
I insure a 1.1 Corsa as Mr Smith (28) of Kent.
After the crash it turns out it's a 1.8 corsa and I am actuall Mr Scroat (19) a disqualified driver from Essex.
The insurance would probably not pay out.
The driver has commited fraud and is effectively uninsured.
That's guesswork from me.
But it's how I understand things.
I insure a 1.1 Corsa as Mr Smith (28) of Kent.
After the crash it turns out it's a 1.8 corsa and I am actuall Mr Scroat (19) a disqualified driver from Essex.
The insurance would probably not pay out.
The driver has commited fraud and is effectively uninsured.
That's guesswork from me.
But it's how I understand things.
Snowboy said:
Speculative example.
I insure a 1.1 Corsa as Mr Smith (28) of Kent.
After the crash it turns out it's a 1.8 corsa and I am actuall Mr Scroat (19) a disqualified driver from Essex.
The insurance would probably not pay out.
The driver has commited fraud and is effectively uninsured.
That's guesswork from me.
But it's how I understand things.
Wrong.I insure a 1.1 Corsa as Mr Smith (28) of Kent.
After the crash it turns out it's a 1.8 corsa and I am actuall Mr Scroat (19) a disqualified driver from Essex.
The insurance would probably not pay out.
The driver has commited fraud and is effectively uninsured.
That's guesswork from me.
But it's how I understand things.
Mr Scroat's insurers would have to meet any tp damage/injury claim (provided the tp's loss wasn't covered by their own insurance).
They could claim any outlay they made to the tp back from Mr Scroat personally, but that's after the innocent tp has been paid.
Thanks for responding, please see below. I hope it's clearer.
IF the named driver on the third parties insurance is shown to have been driving (or the third party insurer fails to prove that he wasn't) AND the third party insurers do decided to void the policy from inception where does that leave me? Will they (the third parties insurers) be required to pay MY claim under the provisions of the RTA 1988 (assuming it's fair/reasonable etc)?
Other than the suspected individual there is no-one else being considered as responsible for the accident.
LoonR1 said:
Not sure in understand the question.
Apologies - please bare with me, I'm not an insurance expert, I'm just trying to understand what's going on with this and where it leaves me!
Why do you think it will be cancelled from inception?
Because that this is what the insurance appointed legal advisors, the police and the accident management company are all telling me is the likely outcome based on what they now know to be true following the involvement of the police. This new information has brought to light that the the suspected driver (a named driver on the policy) had "numerous" convictions that were not declared when the policy was taken out that would, in all likelihood, not simply have pushed the cost of the policy up.
Why isn't this with your insurers to resolve?
It is - it's been dragging for almost 6 months whilst they try to work with an awkward third party insurance company, an awkward suspect and trying conditions with very limited access to the suspect. I'm simply trying to understand what is going on, rather than being left in the dark for weeks/months on end.
Was the other driver named on that policy? Or was it stolen?
The suspected driver is a named driver on the abandoned vehicles insurance. They are however reporting the vehicle as stolen but they are reporting it as stolen. No one believes this, in particular the Police.
So to simplify/reword, the question is....Apologies - please bare with me, I'm not an insurance expert, I'm just trying to understand what's going on with this and where it leaves me!
Why do you think it will be cancelled from inception?
Because that this is what the insurance appointed legal advisors, the police and the accident management company are all telling me is the likely outcome based on what they now know to be true following the involvement of the police. This new information has brought to light that the the suspected driver (a named driver on the policy) had "numerous" convictions that were not declared when the policy was taken out that would, in all likelihood, not simply have pushed the cost of the policy up.
Why isn't this with your insurers to resolve?
It is - it's been dragging for almost 6 months whilst they try to work with an awkward third party insurance company, an awkward suspect and trying conditions with very limited access to the suspect. I'm simply trying to understand what is going on, rather than being left in the dark for weeks/months on end.
Was the other driver named on that policy? Or was it stolen?
The suspected driver is a named driver on the abandoned vehicles insurance. They are however reporting the vehicle as stolen but they are reporting it as stolen. No one believes this, in particular the Police.
IF the named driver on the third parties insurance is shown to have been driving (or the third party insurer fails to prove that he wasn't) AND the third party insurers do decided to void the policy from inception where does that leave me? Will they (the third parties insurers) be required to pay MY claim under the provisions of the RTA 1988 (assuming it's fair/reasonable etc)?
Other than the suspected individual there is no-one else being considered as responsible for the accident.
You mention an AMC and your insurers. We're the AMC appointed by your insurers or did you use one of your own?
Simply speaking if its voided from inception then the Insurer still remains liable unless this is a really serious one in which case the MIB will deal. You won't lose out but it will take time.
The TP insurer isn't Admiral or one of their brands by any chance is it?
Simply speaking if its voided from inception then the Insurer still remains liable unless this is a really serious one in which case the MIB will deal. You won't lose out but it will take time.
The TP insurer isn't Admiral or one of their brands by any chance is it?
The AMC was the one appointed by the insurers... I'm hoping this is a good thing (I find it hard to see how it can't be!) TP insurer is not part of Admiral Group no... may I ask why?
When you say a "really serious one" do you mean in term of monetary value?
Should the TP insurer be granted "article 75" status will they still be liable, despite the fact I have my own insurance? I can't make that out from what I'm reading.
Thanks for your advice, after 6 months it's clear that this isn't going to be quick. I keep getting told my case is very unusual so I'm preparing for 6 months to be just the beginning!
When you say a "really serious one" do you mean in term of monetary value?
Should the TP insurer be granted "article 75" status will they still be liable, despite the fact I have my own insurance? I can't make that out from what I'm reading.
Thanks for your advice, after 6 months it's clear that this isn't going to be quick. I keep getting told my case is very unusual so I'm preparing for 6 months to be just the beginning!
Google Anne Bissmire for the answer to really serious one and why Admiral. They are one of the few who've really argued this out in court.
If you did all this through your insurers then they should be dealing as best as they can. It will jut take time. It's unlikely the TP insurer is being awkward. More likely they are struggling with the TP themselves.
Who are you insured with?
If you did all this through your insurers then they should be dealing as best as they can. It will jut take time. It's unlikely the TP insurer is being awkward. More likely they are struggling with the TP themselves.
Who are you insured with?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff