Burglar stole my car, scratched someone elses and i have to pay?

vikingaero

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Sorry but that is wrong, the claim will be against the op's policy, sounds wrong??. Maybe, but that's how it works.

I agree.

It's possible that the OP will be liable for the damage under her own policy. Sometimes the Insurers will cover damage for third party losses where the car has been stolen and driven by a thief as unfair as that sounds.

For instance, thief steals your car, runs over a pedestrian and puts them into a vegetative state, your insurer may pay out if an application is made to the Court.

I'm aware of this from my years of working in insurance, but maybe someone like dacouch or Lisyloo could explain the technical details better than I can.

shelleuk

Directline have told me that i will get a fault claim on my record and lose 2 years no claims bonus if the offender gets let off at court. If he gets found guilty (chances are he will he was found sat in the car) and hes already served time so hes likely to plead guilty now, they will pursue him through the courts to reclaim any costs and i will have my no claims reinstated. So from what they told me

A) her insurance claims against me

Mine pay out to her insurer

C) Mine claim it back from him and some uninsured drived company if hes found guilty and i get my no claims back

But so far there is no claim against me, but they know everything thats happened. The 'theft' team will contact me in 3 days to sort it out.

She was so annoyed when i said ive already contacted the insurance because thats what you wanted me to do. So in her eyes its my fault her cars got a scratch because i was robbed and i should accept responisibility. What if he knocked a child over in my car, do i accept responsibilty for that too. My insurance will sort it out but she thinks i need to accept personal liabilty for the scratch and pay up which i wont as i wasn't driving the car. Im really embarressed about telling her where to go and slamming the door. Im not having anyone tell me its my own fault for being robbed shouting at me because i want to do it through the insurance. The car never got taken away like she said it was to be fixed by the insurance.

Lum

vaio wrote: »

Lum, it's nothing to do with MIB, it’s S151 of the RTA, link in post #9

I stand corrected.

However my point remains the same. While the OPs insurance company may have liability and pay out for the neighbours court. The OP has no liability or obligation to the neighbour whatsoever. If Direct Line and the FSCS were to cease to exist tomorrow, the OPs neighbour would get nothing.

shelleuk

Lum wrote: »

I stand corrected.

However my point remains the same. While the OPs insurance company may have liability and pay out for the neighbours court. The OP has no liability or obligation to the neighbour whatsoever. If Direct Line and the FSCS were to cease to exist tomorrow, the OPs neighbour would get nothing.

Yes this is correct they said they will pay if her insurance company proves that my car did the damage because they are the insurer on the car but im not personally liable to anyone. She definatly said that they will pursue him for the money. I will lose 2 years because i have a claim made against my policy not me personally i will get it back if hes found guilty

Lum

You'll get it back if he's found guilty AND they are able to get all of the money out of him.

If he pulls the "I'm on the dole and can only pay a pound a week" stunt it'll be a long time before you see that NCB back.

Bear in mind that under the proceeds of crime act, the police will keep any money he has that is deemed to be profit from his career of burglary.

vaio

vikingaero wrote: »

I agree.

It's possible that the OP will be liable for the damage under her own policy. Sometimes the Insurers will cover damage for third party losses where the car has been stolen and driven by a thief as unfair as that sounds.

For instance, thief steals your car, runs over a pedestrian and puts them into a vegetative state, your insurer may pay out if an application is made to the Court.

I'm aware of this from my years of working in insurance, but maybe someone like dacouch or Lisyloo could explain the technical details better than I can.

Or you could just read the law using the link I posted way back in post #9

Having been banging on about s151, which makes the OP insurance company liable (and hence costs the OP) I can’t see anything that means the neighbour must use s151

They could just do it as a normal MIB uninsured driver claim which would be fairer as it transfers the costs to all policy holders/companies rather than just the OP/her company.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Or you could just read the law using the link I posted way back in post #9

Having been banging on about s151, which makes the OP insurance company liable (and hence costs the OP) I can’t see anything that means the neighbour must use s151

They could just do it as a normal MIB uninsured driver claim which would be fairer as it transfers the costs to all policy holders/companies rather than just the OP/her company.

The RTA link only applies if the thieve is identified, the key wording in the link is obtaining judgement against a person eg a known person

(a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or

(b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.

vaio

yep, I was thinking (b) applies as the thief is identified but can't see any obligation to use it rather than just doing a normal MIB claim which, as I said, would be fairer as it would spread the cost over all policy holders rather than just the OP