Car insurance - stolen car caused damage - who pays?

payless

interesting take

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034997/Police-charge-man-1-000-car-crash-damage-caused-thief-stolen-VW-Golf.html

payless

payless wrote: »

interesting take

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034997/Police-charge-man-1-000-car-crash-damage-caused-thief-stolen-VW-Golf.html

but

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2001/may/21/motorinsurance.insurance

To me and my understanding of insurance ( I don't do car insurance , so based on layman terms) means that unless the owner of the stolen car was neglient , neither he ( nor his insurers ) are liable for repair to the other property..and the costs would fall onto the damaged car owner ( poss via his own insurers) who could try and reclaim from the criminal ( fat chance)

. whether that is what really happens though I don't know.

Mouseman

Thanks for all the replies - and thank you for the links.

The first link with the stolen GTI is a ballache - but if you leave your keys in the ignition unattended, you're kinda asking for it! I know of no insurer who will pay out in that circumstance?

The second article is a lot closer to our situation; the car was secure, entry was forced. The insurer says it classes the vehicle as stolen at the time of the incident, so fingers crossed "common sense" prevails and this doesn't sting!

I must confess to being 110% confused by the whole insurance system now. OH's view on liability and who pays excesses is completely different to how I saw it...

In the original scenario in the OP, the stolen car has 3rd party fire & theft cover. Damaged vehicle's cover is unknown.

Who ends up paying an excess at the end of the day, assuming a claim is made by the damaged car's owner and the stolen car's insurer has to pay out?

raskazz

Mouseman wrote: »

I must confess to being 110% confused by the whole insurance system now. OH's view on liability and who pays excesses is completely different to how I saw it...

In the original scenario in the OP, the stolen car has 3rd party fire & theft cover. Damaged vehicle's cover is unknown.

Who ends up paying an excess at the end of the day, assuming a claim is made by the damaged car's owner and the stolen car's insurer has to pay out?

I wouldn't worry about not understanding it. Many people who work in the motor insurance industry never fully understand the implications of contractual liability, Road Traffic Act liability and the MIB/Article 75 liability.

In the situation which you describe in the original post, IMO the situation depends upon whether the driver (the thief) was identified. If he was identified then the insurer of the broken into car can be liable as Road Traffic Act insurer. If he remains unidentified then the claim would have to be presented to the Motor Insurer's Bureau under the Untraced Drivers Agreement.

vikingaero

I'm fairly sure that the insurers of a stolen car will have to cough up for damage to the parked car. Same if the stolen car rolled down a long hill and hit a shopper. The shopper could claim from the insurers of the stolen car.

Quentin

Mouseman wrote: »

Who ends up paying an excess at the end of the day, assuming a claim is made by the damaged car's owner and the stolen car's insurer has to pay out?

In that scenario there would be no excess involved for anyone to pay.

payless

I wouldn't worry about not understanding it. Many people who work in the motor insurance industry never fully understand the implications of contractual liability, Road Traffic Act liability and the MIB/Article 75 liability.

In the situation which you describe in the original post, IMO the situation depends upon whether the driver (the thief) was identified. If he was identified then the insurer of the broken into car can be liable as Road Traffic Act insurer. If he remains unidentified then the claim would have to be presented to the Motor Insurer's Bureau under the Untraced Drivers Agreement.

So if identified and the stolen car (A) insurers pay out ... I assume they can persue criminal for the costs.. how is NCD effected ??

If unidentified , does that mean the owner of damaged car (b) needs to claim this himself if doesn't want to claim on own cover - or via owner A insurers

raskazz

payless wrote: »

So if identified and the stolen car (A) insurers pay out ... I assume they can persue criminal for the costs.. how is NCD effected ??

If the driver is identified then there are two possible scenarios:

(i) The person whose car was damaged makes a claim against the insurer of the stolen car. The insurer says 'sorry - he wasn't covered to drive' and tells the victim to take the thief to court. After the court judgment is given against the thief, if the judgment is unpaid the insurer will pay it and then look to reclaim the cost from the thief.

(ii) The person whose car was damaged makes a claim against the insurer of the stolen car. The insurer agrees to deal with it, they either make the thief sign a 'consent and indemnity' form (which basically states that he owes them any money paid out) or they just deal with it anyway if the thief has no assets. This can help the insurer increase their control of the case and avoid court.

NCD will usually be affected although different insurers have different policy on that.

payless wrote: »

If unidentified , does that mean the owner of damaged car (b) needs to claim this himself if doesn't want to claim on own cover - or via owner A insurers

The owner of the damaged car could claim against his own policy if it is comprehensive, or he can take his claim to the Motor Insurer's Bureau under the Untraced Driver's Agreement.

movilogo

Why are you bothered whether your insurance will pay damage to other car?

Your car was broken into ( = stolen). You made a claim for stolen vehicle. Now you are worried your premium will go up next year.

Yes it will to some extent. But it doesn't matter whether your insurer pays Bentley/Ferrari owner £1000 or £1 million. The amount of payout is irrelevant while renewing your policy. All what matters that you had made a claim.

Mouseman

movilogo wrote: »

Why are you bothered whether your insurance will pay damage to other car?

Your car was broken into ( = stolen). You made a claim for stolen vehicle. Now you are worried your premium will go up next year.

Yes it will to some extent. But it doesn't matter whether your insurer pays Bentley/Ferrari owner £1000 or £1 million. The amount of payout is irrelevant while renewing your policy. All what matters that you had made a claim.

You've picked things up wrong matey - there is no claim for the stolen vehicle. The only possible claim as things stand is the damaged car owner claiming for the damage to their vehicle.
Thus I'm bothered because if they won't pay up (as this was a stolen vehicle and all efforts were made to secure it before the theft), there won't be any claims surrounding this incident, so premiums won't go up, excesses won't have to be paid, NCD will remain intact etc.