Car insurance and court attendance

AlanF

Hi,

My step-daughter was involved in a crash 2 years ago which she suspected at the time was a scam. One car intimidated her, followed her very closely, and repeatedly overtook and undertook her, eventually forcing her off her lane and to brake quickly, and she hit the car in front at low speed. Four men got out of that car holding their necks. Because she ran into the back of them, it was deemed her fault, and she lost her no claims bonus.

Two years later her insurance company of that time are now seeking to claim back the whiplash costs they incurred because they have received further information to make them believe the accident was indeed a scam. She says it is a civil, not a criminal claim. They are asking my step-daughter to attend court, and pre-court meetings to make sure her 'story is straight'.

She has told them it's a long time ago, she can't remember any details other than what she made in her statement, and that she is reluctant to take time off work in a new job with great pressures on her. They (the company's solicitor) have been very pushy, and have told that she has to co-operate, otherwise they will attempt to claim the £55K back from her! They have also told her that even if it is successful, she will not gain from this - they have told her that she can't retrospectively have her no-claims adjusted, nor be repaid the costs of repairing her own car (she was TPF&T). They have also said that they won't cover any expenses she incurs, including lost pay.

I've looked at the business terms and conditions of her policy (the standard one available online) which makes no mention of any such obligation, so I've suggested that she ask the solicitors to show her what part of her contract obliges her to attend.

Does anyone know if this is standard policy, and if can she refuse to attend or become involved in civil proceedings?

Thanks

Alan

Quentin

You need the policy conditions, rather than the website published "business" ts + cs

They will almost certainly show that she agreed to assist over any claim against her that the insurers wish to defend.

Failure to comply would give them grounds to void the policy and turn their sights on her to reimburse their outlay on her behalf.

BertTheRaccoon

Do you know if this is for a trial to determine the original accident and whether the claimants should be paid out, or if the insurers have already paid out and this is an effort to pursue recovery of the sums they have paid out?

magpiecottage

I think if they are threatening her in the way you suggest, they are being unfair and unreasonable - particularly if there is no prospect of her NCD being reinstated.

Two things.

Firstly, if she had legal expenses cover at the time of the incident she should get on to that insurer, explain what has happened and ask for assistance in recovering her own losses from the other parties. This may or may not be successful but is worth a try.

Secondly, she should complain to the motor insurer that it is being unfair and unreasonable.

If the case goes to court, she can be summonsed to appear as a witness. If that happens, she will need to go.

Although the new employer need not pay her for time taken off to go to court, it would be unwise to penalise her (apart from not paying her for that time) as the court would probably take a dim view of it.

AlanF

Hi Bert the Racoon,

Yes, the insurance have already paid out (2 years ago) and this an attempt to recoup their losses.

Thanks for other replies

Alan

vaio

AlanF wrote: »

........They (the company's solicitor) have been very pushy, and have told that she has to co-operate, otherwise they will attempt to claim the £55K back from her! They have also told her that even if it is successful, she will not gain from this - they have told her that she can't retrospectively have her no-claims adjusted, nor be repaid the costs of repairing her own car (she was TPF&T). They have also said that they won't cover any expenses she incurs, including lost pay......

Would it not be the case that as the original claim was against her (with the insurer just indemnifying her) then the subsequent reclaim also needs to be in her name?

If that is the case then I'd have thought she should certainly have her original uninsured losses (repairs, NCB & fault loadings) included in the action and I'd only be doing it if I had an agreement that my out of pocket expenses for meetings & court attendance etc would be paid by the insurer in any event.

BertTheRaccoon

This is quite a complex situation and I would guess that legal expense appointed sols would probably not be much help/ there would probably not be an indemnity under the policy to cover advice & assistance for what could either be a re-trial/ or some form of restitution proceedings.

There are so many variables involved here that it will probably be difficult to get proper cogent advice via this forum as ideally you need a solicitor to advise your daughter and for that solicitor to speak with the solicitor acting for the insurer.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

AlanF

Many thanks again for all that help. It would probably cost her more to get legal advice than to simply comply with what the company ask. I've suggested that she asks their solicitor to confirm in writing that they will take action against her if she refuses to attend court on their behalf, and to confirm that they are refusing to compensate her for the wronged loss of NCB if the end result is that the accident was deemed not her fault. However, I would imagine from the circumstances of the accident that if it is felt to have been a scam, then it would become a criminal matter rather than a simple insurance claim, and she may then have other legal avenues to recoup her losses against the perpetrators' insurance.

Thanks to all for the advice - much appreciated!

Alan

System

AlanF wrote: »

. However, I would imagine from the circumstances of the accident that if it is felt to have been a scam, then it would become a criminal matter

Would it help matters to report the new developments to the police as a fraud?

Prothet_of_Doom

There are reasons why it might WIN as a civil action but fail as a criminal one. Burden of proof and all that.

magpiecottage

AlanF wrote: »

Many thanks again for all that help. It would probably cost her more to get legal advice than to simply comply with what the company ask. I've suggested that she asks their solicitor to confirm in writing

Quite possibly but a complaint to the insurer is free and it will then be for the insurer to justify what its solicitor is doing.

Speak to the organ grinder, not the monkey!

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

There are reasons why it might WIN as a civil action but fail as a criminal one. Burden of proof and all that.

I agree. Criminal law requires a claim to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. A civil action will succeed if it is deemed more likely than not that the assertion is true.

There will be a knock on effect to the other side if the case is one because the claim will go on to THEIR insurance record.

If, of course, they turn out not to have been insured at the time, that IS a criminal offence that can be easily proven.