Who is liable for this crash

uktyler

rose28454 wrote: »

The point is he hit her and not vice versa. Yes she was stupidly not insured but he is insured and therefore should pay up for her damage. He damaged his car when he hit her!

Her car should not have been on the road.

If he pursues this with the police you daughter will be fined, and have points on her licence.

In my opinion you are better off saying to him you will cover the damage to your car if he repairs his.

If you claim off him, he will go through the insurance, and they will find your daughter was not insured and report her to the police.

Quentin

Whatever the "point", you came onto this money saving forum for advice.

Your daughter risks big criminal trouble for driving uninsured. If she is done for this, then the money involved over the years (fine plus heavy insurance premiums) wll be far more than just paying the guy off.

She will be worried whether the crime comes to light for a long time, as the third party only has to report the incident with her details to either insurer involved (or the police) for the truth to come out.

Cut your losses now!

Poppy9

rose28454 wrote: »

The point is he hit her and not vice versa. Yes she was stupidly not insured but he is insured and therefore should pay up for her damage. He damaged his car when he hit her!

rose28454 wrote:

We went to see him and the damage to his car is a scratched bumper and cracked number plate. He said he needed to get quotes as he did not know if there was any underlying damage. My oh has looked at the car and we all agree that he hit her and as she was on main road he is liable. Re insurance we have re-instated it and will give him policy number later. Regardless I dont think my daughter should pay ( insured or not ) for hers or his car. If her insurance dont want to know how can we pursue him for payment ourselves. I know there is an issue re her insurance status but he did hit her so he is still liable.

When you say "we all agree" who is we? Is it you, OH, and DD or does it include the other driver?

Is the insurance backdated to when the policy lapsed? If so did you inform the insurance company about the accident? You have to tell insurance companies everything, else they can void the policy.

He may suspect she is uninsured hence the reluctance to pass on insurance details. This gives him the upper hand.

He is getting his car checked for more damage, ask yourself why. I suspect because he is not admitting liability but is seeing how much damage there is before making his decision. If you disagree with his POV then the matter of your daughter being unisured will be brought to light, your insurance company may refuse to cover or even cancel the policy. Then when your daughter tries to get new insurance and they ask if you have ever had insurance declined or cancelled you have to answer yes. She may then find herself refused insurance by other companies.

tinkerbell84

Poppy9 wrote: »

Is the insurance backdated to when the policy lapsed? If so did you inform the insurance company about the accident? You have to tell insurance companies everything, else they can void the policy.
.

Spot on. If they've just re-started the cover from the point you phoned, then your daughter was uninsured and it was illegal for her to be on the road.

If I was the other driver, and that was the case, I'd be getting the book thrown at her.

Idiophreak

rose28454 wrote: »

The point is he hit her and not vice versa. Yes she was stupidly not insured but he is insured and therefore should pay up for her damage. He damaged his car when he hit her!

Sad to say it, but you really give up any "rights" you have regarding this kinda thing when you drive uninsured. I guess you could try pressing ahead with some kinda civil claim, but the cost will be (as uktyler says) a criminal charge against your DD. It really isn't worth it for the amount of money we're talking about here.

raskazz

I'm sure you don't need to be told that your daughter has done something very silly, to put it mildly, and she is now in a Catch-22 position:

If your daughter does not divulge her insurance details (or lack thereof) to the other party then she is guilty of an offence. Furthermore, what would happen is that the third party's insurers would discover that she was uninsured via a number plate search of the motor insurance database, they would then deal with the third party's claim and potentially take her to court to recover the money if they feel that she was fully or partly responsible for the accident (or her previous insurer may have to deal with it and then recover the money from your daughter). They could also report her to the police for driving without insurance.

If she confesses that she is not insured then the third party will have her over a barrel, and can effectively force her to repair his car by implying that they will report her to the police if she does not, despite the rather unclear liability for the incident.

Your daughter could potentially try to pursue the third party for the damage to her car, but if the matter did proceed to court then her credibility would be severely damaged through the lack of insurance.

IMO the best option would be to offer to pay for the third party's repairs. It is the lesser of a few evils.

BTW, your daughter will have to disclose the cancellation of the policy by the insurer to all her future insurers, which means that she could face difficulty in obtaining cover at reasonable rates. If you added a conviction for driving without insurance then she may well be effectively priced off the road for the next five years.

cogito

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

Spot on. If they've just re-started the cover from the point you phoned, then your daughter was uninsured and it was illegal for her to be on the road.

If I was the other driver, and that was the case, I'd be getting the book thrown at her.

That's a pretty nasty vindictive kind of thing to do, don't you think? Why on earth would you want to do that?

cajef

cogito wrote: »

That's a pretty nasty vindictive kind of thing to do, don't you think? Why on earth would you want to do that?

You may change your mind if it was your car she had written off, or maybe one of your family she could have maimed for life and she is uninsured, I am sorry but irresponsible people that have no thought for how their actions can effect other lives deserve all they get coming to them.

raskazz

cogito wrote: »

That's a pretty nasty vindictive kind of thing to do, don't you think? Why on earth would you want to do that?

For one it would mean that future insurers will know about her careless attitude to such matters and will charge her a premium appropriate to the actual risk she presents, rather than spreading the risk across other innocent policyholders.

cogito

cajef wrote: »

You may change your mind if it was your car she had written off, or maybe one of your family she could have maimed for life and she is uninsured, I am sorry but irresponsible people that have no thought for how their actions can effect other lives deserve all they get coming to them.

But that isn't what happened here. If it had been a serious incident, the police would have attended and the law would have taken its course. I have no truck with drivers who drive uninsured and the law should deal with them much more seriously than it does. The OP's daughter will rectify her mistake which was probably no more than an oversight but I wouldn't regard it as my responsibility to go running to the police to try to get some advantage out of an accident that was my own fault.