Car accident, not at fault but being penalised

vaio

but wouldn't a PI claim from passengers only hit the OP's policy if there was negligence involved?

As, on the face of it, the only negligence was the unidentified at fault driver then surely PI claims from the OP's passengers (and indeed the OP herself) should be paid by the MIB (or RTA insurer if there was a policy on the at fault car)

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

but wouldn't a PI claim from passengers only hit the OP's policy if there was negligence involved?....

The passengers injury claims will be covered by the OP's policy irrespective of who was to blame.

vaio

Really? How does a claim arise if there is no negligence?

Quentin

The claim arises because the passenger was injured whilst in the car.

All covered by the policy, nothing unusual.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

The claim arises because the passenger was injured whilst in the car.

All covered by the policy, nothing unusual.

yep, obviously I see the claim arises because the passenger was injured whilst in the car, what I don't understand is the basis on which you say the OP's insurer is liable when their driver wasn't negligent.

Surely the claims of the non fault driver & their passengers would be paid by the negligent driver or their insurer/MIB?

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

Surely the claims of the non fault driver & their passengers would be paid by the negligent driver or their insurer/MIB?....

If they could, then QMH (op's insurer) would get reimbursed off the third party.

That is what the OP is unhappy about - his insurer is paying his write off claim (and the passengers injury compensation) and cannot reclaim it, thereby he ends up with this fault claim!

(I am presuming that when QMH say:

We will also need to settle your policy holder's personal injury claim as they have submitted a claim against you

they actually meant "passengers' personal injury claim" not "policy holder's claim")

vaio

yeah but my thinking is that the write off claim is contractual with the OP's insurer being able to launch a subrogated tort claim based on negligence against the at fault party to recover their costs but the PI for OP & passengers can only be based on negligence so can only proceed against the at fault party (or their insurer/MIB)

As there was no negligence by the OP then their insurer isn't liable for any PI claims

I've seen a case on this...involved a BMW which slid on ice and seriously injured a passenger.

edited to add: found the case

http://insurance.hapigan.com/2013/04/12/quinn-victory-over-payout-to-brain-damaged-car-passenger/

thenudeone

vaio wrote: »

Really? How does a claim arise if there is no negligence?

The Road Traffic Act 1988 s158 (2) forces a vehicle's user (and therefore by implication, their insurers) to pay for Emergency Medical and Hospital Treatment (calculated on a statutory basis) regardless of blame or liability, to avoid hospitals becoming bogged down in disputes surrounding who was to blame.

s158 (4) provides that the vehicle's user can then re-claim these costs from the party who was actually to blame (if not themselves)

The legislation isn't easy to follow but here it is:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/payments-for-treatment-of-traffic-casualties

vaio

yep, but the discussion isn't about Emergency treatment, it about a full blown PI claim

thenudeone

vaio wrote: »

yep, but the discussion isn't about Emergency treatment, it about a full blown PI claim

A Full blown PI claim requires the policyholder to have been at least partly to blame. The OP has already stated that the other party was to blame so a full PI claim won't be made provided all parties agree on that assessment of blame.

An RTA claim for hospital/emergency treatment can result in a claim against the driver's policy regardless of blame.