Hit by stolen car, found at fault, please help
Options
Comments
-
So if you want to claim for damage why are you trying to get your insurance company to claim for damage? Your insurance company did not insure your vehicle for damage so they are not going to claim from the other car's insurance company for your non existent damage cover.
This is nothing to do with your insurance company you didn't have cover for damage to your car.
Stop arguing with your insurance company over your non existent policy and go ahead and claim for damages against the insurance company which insures the other car. See how far that gets you. You certainly aren't going to be able to prove that the owner of the other car was at fault because they weren't driving the car. The people who were driving it were not insured to drive it.
This kind of problem is exactly why people pay for fully comprehensive insurance which is more expensive. You took the cheaper option and you got what you paid for.
So under TPFT, your insurer will not claim for damages with the other side if you are not at fault? Remember, that is not the same as claiming for damages with your insurer if you have TPFT
I don't know that's why I'm asking0 -
How many times can it be repeated
TPFT insurance doesn't cover your own vehicle.
And your insurer has nothing to claim for as they have not got anything to pay out for
If you are not at fault then it's down to you to claim off the third party (Instruct a solicitor/claims manager/or DIY)0 -
forgotmyname wrote: »If it was safe how did you manage to cause the accident?
It was not safe because there was a car coming you admit that, its speed is immaterial. You positioned your vehicle in the path of the oncoming vehicle, who had right of way. You are to blame end of.
But your not going to listen to anyone on here, you disagree with your insurance and you will disagree with everyone that says you were at fault.
You knew it was speeding, (which you cannot prove), and yet still pulled out.
If you could not judge his speed as he approached i have to ask if you actually bothered looking properly.
No I did not know it was speeding at the time. I've explained this, please read back on my replies if you really want to know. Thank you for replying, anyway. Cheers.0 -
So under TPFT, your insurer will not claim for damages with the other side if you are not at fault? Remember, that is not the same as claiming for damages with your insurer if you have TPFT
I don't know that's why I'm asking
No they cannot.
Indeed if your insurers accepts costs on their own policy that are not covered (i.e. TPFT cover and paying for your own damage) prevailing case law says expressly that it is counted as an ex gratia payment that they cannot recover.
Note there is nothing stopping you pursueing the third party insurers directly, but expect to find it difficult. You may wish to use a solicitor but given the circumstances it might be difficult to get one on a fee agreement.0 -
FlameCloud wrote: »No they cannot.
Indeed if your insurers accepts costs on their own policy that are not covered (i.e. TPFT cover and paying for your own damage) prevailing case law says expressly that it is counted as an ex gratia payment that they cannot recover.
Note there is nothing stopping you pursueing the third party insurers directly, but expect to find it difficult. You may wish to use a solicitor but given the circumstances it might be difficult to get one on a fee agreement.
Thank you, that is very useful. Cheers.0 -
Hopefully the penny drops now.0
-
A fair chance each insurer has agreed to cover their own and as OP only has TP they have dipped out.0
-
So under TPFT, your insurer will not claim for damages with the other side if you are not at fault? Remember, that is not the same as claiming for damages with your insurer if you have TPFT
I don't know that's why I'm asking
Whether you were at fault or not makes no difference because you didn't have any insurance against damage to your vehicle. It is the lack of insurance for damage to your vehicle that means that the insurance company is not going to chase the otherside. They don't owe you any money.
If you want to claim for the damage you have to do it yourself. However I have no idea how you are going to prove that the other car owner was at fault because they were not driving the car and the people who were didn't have any sort of insurance to drive it.0 -
Whether you were at fault or not makes no difference because you didn't have any insurance against damage to your vehicle. It is the lack of insurance for damage to your vehicle that means that the insurance company is not going to chase the otherside. They don't owe you any money.
If you want to claim for the damage you have to do it yourself. However I have no idea how you are going to prove that the other car owner was at fault because they were not driving the car and the people who were didn't have any sort of insurance to drive it.
Thank you, it would have to be an MIB claim then. But shouldn't I try to overturn the decision for liability with my insurer anyway, to stop my premium from going up at least?
Thanks.0 -
Just to clarify things a bit further for you, you don't claim for this through your insurer. As others have pointed out you are not covered for damage to your vehicle. If the other party are at fault(and it's a big if) then you can claim from their insurance as they will be covered for Third party damage. You will have to go get yourself a solicitor and get them to make the claim on your behalf. Lots of accident solicitors about, do some research and pick a good one.
The problem that you have got is that you are at fault for the accident. It doesn't matter what the other driver was doing in terms of speeding and not paying attention etc. You as the driver of your vehicle are the judge of what makes a manoeuvre safe. As others have pointed out you have to give way to vehicle's on the major road when there is a give way on a minor road. He could have been driving at 150mph, but because you have pulled out when it was unsafe to do so you will be found at fault. The court would have ruled you had misjudged the speed of the oncoming vehicle. If it wasn't unsafe to do so they wouldn't have hit you. None of the other stuff you have said about it being stolen and such, even enters into it. if you could have proved they were under the influence then you might have had more of a case to get some contributory negligence applied to your case, but given that they hadn't given a blood sample or anything you aren't going to get anywhere with that. The bare truth is, if you are pulling out of a side road and you collide with another car then you are fault...almost everytime.
There was even a case whereby someone pulling out of a minor road collided with a lorry coming down the major road that was also signalling left. they pulled out when they thought it was safe, lorry driver hit them. it was the person in the car's fault for pulling out when its not safe.
Sorry to be the bearer of some tough love here, but it's just tough, the onus is on the driver pulling out to ensure the way is clear and safe. A collision occurred so it clearly wasn't. I'll put a quote from the summary judgement at the bottom of this for you so that you can see what I mean. if you want to google it then it was Davis v Swinwood(2002) but the judgement went as follows...
So you have two options......the case of Davis v Swinwood (2002) in which the court found in the insured’s favour. In this case the defendant’s car was stationary at a junction with the intention to emerge from the minor road onto the major road. The claimant’s lorry was travelling along the major road. The defendant’s evidence was that he looked to his left and his right and saw the claimant’s left indicator flashing and he noted that the claimant was travelling at a slow speed. Based on these two points, the defendant emerged from the minor road and a collision occurred. The court held in favour of the claimant travelling on the major road. Although the judge found that the claimant’s indicator had been flashing for at least some of his journey down the main road, this was not the relevant issue in the case. The defendant had been seeking to enter a major road from a minor road. The claimant had precedence on the road and the onus was clearly on the defendant to enter the major carriageway safely, which he had failed to do. The defendant’s claim was dismissed in its entirety.
1) go get a solicitor, and see if anything is able to be done...It won't be and if you pay to go to court you will lose.
2) chalk it up to experience, let it go, and try and move on with your life.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards