Car Accident - car vs cab.. Help!

InsideInsurance

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

What law dictates that?

The law is Marine Insurance Act 1906 and Lambert v Cooperative Insurance Society (1975) confirmed that the act did not apply exclusively to marine insurance.

Add to that you have a contractual obligation under the terms of your policy (or at least the vast majority).

Finally you have the common law consideration that insurance is based on the principle of utmost good faith

System

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The law is Marine Insurance Act 1906 and Lambert v Cooperative Insurance Society (1975) confirmed that the act did not apply exclusively to marine insurance.

The Lambert case rested on Mrs lambert's failure to disclose her husband's previous convictions for burglary, so the Coop insurance refused to pay up when her own jewelery was stolen.

That's contract law. That's not the same as say the requirement to report an accident to the police. Mrs Lambert wasn't prosecuted for failing to disclose something to her insurers - she simply didn't get her pay-out.

InsideInsurance

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Mrs Lambert wasn't prosecuted for failing to disclose something to her insurers

I am not saying she was but the requirement for utmost good faith in insurance and the duties on the insured is in the Marine Insurance Act. Obviously the name suggests that it only applies to Marine Insurance but the case involving Mrs Lambert reconfirmed that the statute does cover non-marine lines of business.

Not all statutes require someone to be prosecuted and a statute is not contract law. Of cause if it is shown to have been an intention act then it may be consider fraud and a prosecution may occur (though again not in this case)

Crazy_Jamie

spacey2012 wrote: »

The taxi driver is going to say he was stationary and you pulled in to him to get in the bay.

A stance that he would struggle with given that the picture posted in this thread shows his front nearside wheel turned outwards and the nearside front corner of his taxi at least encroaching on the line if not over it. That positioning would suggest he was about to pull away from the taxi rank, and given that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities that should be enough to defeat such an argument.

Whilst this is all moot now given that the parties seem to have agreed not to take the matter further, the photographic evidence combined with the OP's account would tend to suggest that the taxi would be likely to be found at fault from where I'm sitting.

Sally_A wrote:

Apologies to all the good taxi drivers out there, but now is the time of year when the dodgy ones want to stage non-fault accidents.

A fortnight off with the kiddies & missus on full loss of earnings whilst the cab is in the bodyshop.

They don't get paid leave so "make their own".

Except they are under a duty to mitigate their loss and will therefore be expected to hire a replacement vehicle to continue earning whilst their vehicle is being repaired. If they do not they will be unlikely to recover anything for loss of earnings. It's a fine plan in theory, but the practicalities somewhat get in the way.

Parking_Trouble

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The law is Marine Insurance Act 1906 and Lambert v Cooperative Insurance Society (1975) confirmed that the act did not apply exclusively to marine insurance.

Add to that you have a contractual obligation under the terms of your policy (or at least the vast majority).

Finally you have the common law consideration that insurance is based on the principle of utmost good faith

I doubt that 99.99% of consumers have ever heard of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, and 99.99% of the 0.01% who have heard of it don't know what it contains. Where is that or the Lambert case mentioned in your policy T&C's?

Just shows has farcical the insurance industry is and how consumers are disadvantaged by the legal quagmire that it is based upon.

So perhaps a fairer description is that you may be contractually obliged to inform your insurer if you have an accident, rather than implying the Old Bill will be paying you a visit.

Finally, I thought basing an insurance policy on "utmost good faith" had been dropped. Since April I believe.

rs65

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Finally, I thought basing an insurance policy on "utmost good faith" had been dropped. Since April I believe.

No. What changed in april was the requirement for a consumer to know what an underwriter wanted to know, and provide the information. The onus is with the underwriter to ask questions that they want answers to.

You still have a duty of utmost good faith to disclose information accurately.