Tiny bump in school car park - am I covered?

mikey72

Joe_Horner wrote: »

.......... Running to them for every little scratch where a tin of paint from Halfrauds would have done the job is a pretty clear indicator that you're likely to cost them!

But it's also a condition of the contract you inform them of every little scratch, or they'll void your policy, so it's win win for the insurer.

JennyP

I have to say on the insurance front, that so far so good. I am very impressed with LV!

thenudeone

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That is a CONTRACT term between you and the insurer, which I believe I mentioned in my previous post:

There is nothing there that transfers legal liability for the accident to them,

Yes there is. Here it is:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151

Joe_Horner wrote: »

and nothing which grants them any power to make decisions or take action on your behalf except in so far as they need to to limit their losses under the contract.

Yes there is something which grants them the power to deal with claims. The terms of all motor insurance contracts state that YOU HAVE AGREED WITH THEM THAT THEY WILL HANDLE ALL CLAIMS. (see my example above)

Joe_Horner wrote: »

All that means is, if you refuse to allow them to act as your agent in a particular case, they won't pay for the damage.

What you are suggesting is that one can keep a completely claim-free record just by refusing to allow one's insurer to deal with any third party claims.

Cloud cuckoo land

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Which is not a problem if you're paying for it yourself anyway.

How will you be paying? How much? The third party has no obligation to communicate with you.

Why do you think the agreement allowing the insurer to deal with it doesn't matter?

The insurer is simply not going to stop a third party claim just because you say you'll deal with it.
Why?
Because if they trust you to deal with it, but you don't, and the third party sues you and wins, the insurer will be held liable for the costs (but without having had any chance to contest the claim or even being present in court), under the law mentioned above, when it would probably have been much cheaper to settle directly with the third party in the first place. That's why they insist as part of every insurance contract that the policyholder lets they deal with all claims. Why do you think they would waive their contractual rights?