I hit my car into my house wall....AAAARGHH

RobertoMoir

Sally_A wrote: »

Tend to agree with Anihilator, home insurers will look to the cause of the damage. On some policies impact is only covered if by Third Party Vehicle, ie not your own (so you would have no option but to claim as a car accident, as the damage to a wall would probably far exceed your no claim bonus discount). I wouldn't place odds on this NOT going against the car insurers, as the proximate cause is vehicle impact, and I'm thinking RTA law will take precedence.

So I suppose the car owner will see... uhh... the car owner in court then?

I wonder who will win?

RobertoMoir

darich wrote: »

If I had comprehensive insurance and it was me, I'd expect my car insurance to pay out. From the buildings insurer's perspective, the accident was not their fault so they'd be looking to claim back all costs.

How could it possibly be the insurance company's fault ever that an accident took place? Or do your insurance company come round and drive your car at night when you're not looking? Mine don't. At least I haven't caught them yet if they do.

mpg

Does it not just hinge on the accidental damge cover. If he has it he's sorted if he doesnt he's skint

darich

RobertoMoir wrote: »

How could it possibly be the insurance company's fault ever that an accident took place? Or do your insurance company come round and drive your car at night when you're not looking? Mine don't. At least I haven't caught them yet if they do.

I appreciate it wasn’t the companies fault….it never is.
I was going to write that it wasn’t the fault of the house insurance holder…..but it was.
I was trying to find a way of saying that it wasn’t the fault of the policy holder so they shouldn’t be out of pocket. It wasn’t really the householder’s fault…it was the car driver’s fault.
The fact that both policies are held by the same person is confusing and makes things more complicated. Presumably policies only cover damage caused by third party to cut down or cut out on fraudulent claims.

RobertoMoir

mpg wrote: »

Does it not just hinge on the accidental damge cover. If he has it he's sorted if he doesnt he's skint

How is he skint? The argument isn't "can he claim off his insurance", it's "which insurance should he claim off for which bit of damage?".

RobertoMoir

darich wrote: »

I appreciate it wasn’t the companies fault….it never is.
I was going to write that it wasn’t the fault of the house insurance holder…..but it was.
I was trying to find a way of saying that it wasn’t the fault of the policy holder so they shouldn’t be out of pocket. It wasn’t really the householder’s fault…it was the car driver’s fault.
The fact that both policies are held by the same person is confusing and makes things more complicated. Presumably policies only cover damage caused by third party to cut down or cut out on fraudulent claims.

Yeah it is confusing, and you didn't deserve all the sarcasm I heaped on you, sorry.

The thing is though, the insurers are not mighty morphing power rangers who we sell our souls to, nor are they chess grandmasters whose army you sign up to be a pawn in. They are our agents - they underwrite our more dangerous activities, and while the insurers do all the work make no mistake, if I run into your car tomorrow (god forbid!) the claim would be "darich" vs "robertomoir" at least as much as it would be "group of insurance companies A vs. insurance behemoth B", and this is the important bit, not me being pedantic, because it means that for the house insurers to claim against the car insurers it would be "OP vs OP" (sorry can't be asked to look name up) and that does not compute!

mpg

RobertoMoir wrote: »

How is he skint? The argument isn't "can he claim off his insurance", it's "which insurance should he claim off for which bit of damage?".

Reading the thread it was looking like he can't claim on his Motor policy and to be honest if he doesnt have accidental damage with his buildings insurance the He's gonna have to put his own hand in his own pocket for the repairs which is going to cost him

BillyJWild

Just buy some sand and cement!

RobertoMoir

mpg wrote: »

Reading the thread it was looking like he can't claim on his Motor policy and to be honest if he doesnt have accidental damage with his buildings insurance the He's gonna have to put his own hand in his own pocket for the repairs which is going to cost him

I wasn't getting 'unable to claim' from anything the OP said. The accidental damage clause is a good point though. You're right, if that's how it is then this might not be very pretty.

cogito

mpg wrote: »

Reading the thread it was looking like he can't claim on his Motor policy and to be honest if he doesnt have accidental damage with his buildings insurance the He's gonna have to put his own hand in his own pocket for the repairs which is going to cost him

It isn't accidental damage. Impact with road vehicles is a specified peril on the policy so would fall outside the scope of Accidental Damage.