excess

smudger1946

Hi All,
A friend of mine was run into the rear of their car by a lady who supposed at the time being a diabetic was having a "Hypo" she thought,her story goes.
The insurance company will pay for the repairs to my friends car but my friend has to pay the excess, they spoke to the insurance company and told my friend that as the accident was caused through a medical reason that he will have to pay the excess.
Facts are vague, but thats how he related the story.
Any advice?


Smudge

Quentin

They have given him correct advice.

As they cannot reclaim the costs off the third party, then no uninsured losses can be reclaimed, including the excess.

This will go down as a fault claim against your friend, and his NCD (if unprotected) will get hit.

spiro

Quentin wrote: »

They have given him correct advice.

As they cannot reclaim the costs off the third party, then no uninsured losses can be reclaimed, including the excess.

This will go down as a fault claim against your friend, and his NCD (if unprotected) will get hit.

Does he have the option of claiming via the small claims court. Surely someone who is a diabetic should not get out of paying just because they failed to control the medication.

Mustard_Dave

spiro wrote: »

Does he have the option of claiming via the small claims court. Surely someone who is a diabetic should not get out of paying just because they failed to control the medication.

I agree completely. Even if they were properly controlling their medication, it should still come from the other party's insurance - they took the risk of driving with the medical condition.

I'd go to an accident management consultant in a non-fault accident where there is potential to be p*ssed about. Quite a lot of people on the https://www.pistonheads.com forum recommend these guys:

http://www.europaconsultants.co.uk/contact.php

One of the directors, Steve Greensmith, is well known on the forum. They will give you free advice - if it does go further, their fees will be paid by the other party.

Quentin

spiro wrote: »

Does he have the option of claiming via the small claims court.

Yes he has the option, but should get advice before spending more money on the SCC - he needs to be able to prove negligence by the third party, which will be very difficult. (And he should bear in mind that his insurer has already accepted the third party has no liability.

Maybe he should see the silver cloud in this (ie. he had comprehensive cover and so has had his repairs paid for - had he been third party only, then he would have had to stump up for all his repairs), and move on.

Quentin

Mustard_Dave wrote: »

I'd go to an accident management consultant in a non-fault accident where there is potential to be p*ssed about.................... One of the directors, Steve Greensmith, is well known on the forum. They will give you free advice - if it does go further, their fees will be paid by the other party.

Any claim handler will give you free advice over this (assuming you ring on a 0800 number!).

They will tell you they aren't interested in the case after hearing why your insurer won't pursue the matter!

Tilt

Quentin wrote: »

Yes he has the option, but should get advice before spending more money on the SCC - he needs to be able to prove negligence by the third party, which will be very difficult. (And he should bear in mind that his insurer has already accepted the third party has no liability.

Maybe he should see the silver cloud in this (ie. he had comprehensive cover and so has had his repairs paid for - had he been third party only, then he would have had to stump up for all his repairs), and move on.

So what happens if someone 'having a hypo' hits a pedestrian?

mikey72

I would disagree with it not being insured for a medical reason.
It has to be declared, and it is a risk the third party insurance cover, and charge a premium to cover when the policy is taken out.
It's not the same as, say, having an unexpected heart attack.
If she has gone hypo, she will now have to declare it to the dvla as well, who will rescind her licence pending being declared fit by her doctor again.
If you have an uninsured loss policy I would pursue through them, if you haven't contact a claim management company and see what they say.

Quentin

mikey72 wrote: »

I would disagree with it not being insured for a medical reason.

They seem to be saying that the liability can't be established.

If the diabetic knew she was going into a hypoglycaemic state and continued to drive, then she would be liable, but the problem may be she was unaware that her level was dropping until too late.

All scary!

mikey72

That's an expected risk of insuring a diabetic though.
The insurer will also suspend cover now until she has been passed medically fit to drive, so they are accepting the risk can be controlled.
Is it was un-diagnosed, it would be an acceptable response to say it wasn't covered.

vaio

Whilst it’s certainly the case that an unexpected/unforeseeable medical issue doesn’t attract liability this is not that clear cut and assuming she was a long standing diabetic I think I’d write to the TP insurance and find out exactly the circumstances she is relying on to avoid liability.

I can see a couple of possibilities………

Either she was aware she was getting hypo in which case she should have stopped and the fact that she didn’t is negligent and attracts liability.

or

She wasn’t aware she was getting hypo in which case, assuming it was the first instance, no liability but she must notify DVLA, stop driving and not start again until she has regained awareness of upcoming hypoglycaemia, to be confirmed by medics. http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/~/media/pdf/medical/at_a_glance.ashx covers it, page 28 & particularly the top of page 29.



If it’s the first possibility then the OP will get paid out, if it’s the second then at least she’ll be off the road for a while which will make it safer for the rest of us (although not much consolation for the OP)