Insurance Claim Problem, Other party not informed company

ahxcjb

Lee_Jones wrote: »

Sorry chap but you're completely wrong.

Any civil "action" is taken against the policyloder/driver. The insurers then have an obligation to satisfy the judgment pursuant to sections 151 & 152 of the Road Traffic Act, as well as other sections.

The policyholder does not have authority to admit liability on behalf of the insurers, but the policyholder can still admit liability.

Of course, and that's my point; the policy holder can admit liability, but them doing so is an irrelevance as any judgement would be reached against the insurers rather than the policy holder.

magpiecottage

ahxcjb wrote: »

Of course, and that's my point; the policy holder can admit liability, but them doing so is an irrelevance as any judgement would be reached against the insurers rather than the policy holder.

No it won't. A judgement would be reached against the insured, not the insurer.

The insurer then has a duty to meet any award in that judgement because the contract of insurance requires them to.

If the insured admits liability and that is accepted by a court and an award made then the insurer must pay it - but can then consider whether it wishes to pursue the insured to recover it. It will normally attempt this only if it believes that, but for the admission, it would not have had to.

In England and Wales, this is now less likely because the Compensation Act 2006 (the same act that controls Claims Management Companies) says that an apology, or even an offer, is not an admission of liability.

InsideInsurance

ahxcjb wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT. The 'action' is taken against the drivers insurers. ONLY THEY can admit liability. Please stop talking total tosh.

Sorry old boy, your the one talking tosh.

The first and third parties are the ones who are involved in the action, the second party (the first party's insurers) will respond to any court action but they do so on behalf of their client not in their own right.