Car insurance rage

darich

iamana1ias wrote: »

If she wants another car she can get finance for it (thus in the same position as she was before the accident).

Except that the accident was not her fault and she's lost her no claims bonus (thus NOT in the same position before the accident) and will now have to pay larger premium, larger excess which may in turn restrict choice/value/spec of car.

Completely different position before and after.

olly300

Unfortunately it's not as simple as sue him.

If he doesn't have a medical condition and fainted for some unknown reason then suing him will just be a case of wasting your money.

A similar thread was placed on the insurance board about a woman having a heart attack or stroke and died, where her insurance company refused to pay out.

maninthestreet

So you can get out of liability for causing an accident like this by just stating you blacked out? I must remember this.

Mark_Hewitt

As far as I know this should not happen. The other drivers insurance company must pay out to third parties under all circumstances.

Even if the driver was driving the wrong way up the motorway whilst blindfolded having previously drank 5 pints of vodka, the insurance company is still liable to third parties.

They are perfectly within their rights not to pay out to the policy holder but as I've always understood it, there is nothing that can absolve them of their responsibilities to third parties.

I suspect this is all too late however as she's gone through her own insurance. In the two cases I've had very minor shunts which weren't my fault I've gone through solicitors who dealt with claiming through the other drivers insurance company, not involving mine at all. But this can take a long time.

She should still be able to claim her excess back from the other party and it's possibly not too late to employ a solicitor to attempt to get damages.

motorguy

maninthestreet wrote: »

So you can get out of liability for causing an accident like this by just stating you blacked out? I must remember this.

+1

Yeah, personally i'd be round there, beat him to a pulp, then claim i 'blacked out'

dacouch

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

As far as I know this should not happen. The other drivers insurance company must pay out to third parties under all circumstances.

Even if the driver was driving the wrong way up the motorway whilst blindfolded having previously drank 5 pints of vodka, the insurance company is still liable to third parties.

They are perfectly within their rights not to pay out to the policy holder but as I've always understood it, there is nothing that can absolve them of their responsibilities to third parties.


She should still be able to claim her excess back from the other party and it's possibly not too late to employ a solicitor to attempt to get damages.

There are exceptions, if someone has say a heart attack and then hits your car they are not legally liable eg the accident could not have "Reasonably" been avoided assuming they have not history of heart attacks. If they have a history of heart attacks and ay did not take their medication and / or had been feeling ill then if you could prove this (Most people would not tell you if they had not taken their medicatin / felt ill) then you may have a case against them.

Some Insurers do pay the claims on an ex gratia basis but it is unusual

Heliflyguy

dacouch wrote: »

There are exceptions, if someone has say a heart attack and then hits your car they are not legally liable eg the accident could not have "Reasonably" been avoided assuming they have not history of heart attacks. If they have a history of heart attacks and ay did not take their medication and / or had been feeling ill then if you could prove this (Most people would not tell you if they had not taken their medicatin / felt ill) then you may have a case against them.

Some Insurers do pay the claims on an ex gratia basis but it is unusual

I see what you say but this sounds like an insurance cop out.
If whilst driving carefully within speed limits a child runs out in front of me I swerve to miss the child but hit another car the accident could not have been reasonably avoided, if it had been avoided I would have hit the child so under your explanation I am not liable.
What am I missing here?

I have to agree with Mark the insurance company should pay up in these circumstances but they appear not to.

Mark_Hewitt

Heliflyguy wrote: »

I have to agree with Mark the insurance company should pay up in these circumstances but they appear not to.

Absolutely, because look at it from the third parties point of view. They have no control over if the person who hits them is driving reasonably, is medically fit, or whatever. That's what makes them the 'third party', they should not suffer because of something someone they have never met may or may not have done.

That's the entire point of insurance!

raskazz

Heliflyguy wrote: »

I see what you say but this sounds like an insurance cop out.

Its not an 'insurance cop out' at all. The lack of liability in cases like this derives from principles of tort in English law. Read this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(case_law)

Heliflyguy wrote: »

If whilst driving carefully within speed limits a child runs out in front of me I swerve to miss the child but hit another car the accident could not have been reasonably avoided, if it had been avoided I would have hit the child so under your explanation I am not liable.

It's not really a particularly useful analogy, as in your example you are not experiencing automatism. If the child caused you to swerve into another car you may escape any liability if your actions were all that could be reasonably expected 'in the agony of the moment'. However, if you easily avoided the child and crashed into the other car 300 yards down the road clearly you would struggle to use the 'agony of the moment' as a defence.

Heliflyguy wrote: »

I have to agree with Mark the insurance company should pay up in these circumstances but they appear not to.

They are under no obligation in law to pay.

raskazz

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

Absolutely, because look at it from the third parties point of view. They have no control over if the person who hits them is driving reasonably, is medically fit, or whatever.

But if the other driver had no medical history of blackouts, had not failed to take prescribed medication, was not driving when unfit through exhaustion and so on then the other driver is in no way at fault morally or legally because he could not in any way have forseen or prevented the accident.

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

That's what makes them the 'third party', they should not suffer because of something someone they have never met may or may not have done.

They are a third party but in cases such as this there is no negligence on the part of the first party. Hence they are not liable for damages in law and neither is their insurer.