Help - Insurance claim rejected and whiplash

londonTiger

edsredshed wrote: »

The Insurance company have said that they will represent meto settle the claim and will then look to get me to reimburse them for allcosts. But then I will hand over allresponsibility to them.

This may become expensive, they are not looking out for you. If they were looking out for you they will retroactively add work cover to your insurance and ask for you to pay the difference in premium.

Laywers are expensive, there is no cap because they've voided your legal cover due to reasons stated. This smells like a bottomless pit.

Get independant advice. It may be cheaper to get an independant solicitor to do this for you.

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

No.

If you don't agree to the insurer's proposal, then they will do nothing until they are forced to by the court.

Your correct - my bad for scan reading.

They are indeed saying they'd do nothing until they are forced to under the Road Traffic Act as the RTA insurer

vaio

If you have SDP & commuting cover then I'd be arguing that you mistakenly thought that the commuting cover was sufficient. If you can get that argument past the insurer/FOS then it becomes inadvertent/innocent non disclosure, insurer will pay and you'll have to pay the back dated (but small) premium you should have paid in the first place to increase cover to class 1

If your cover was SDP only then I think you are going to struggle to avoid paying out of your own pocket

Have a read of http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm for more detail

The unsatisfied judgement thing.....your insurers have to pay third party claims under RTA but only once a judgement has been obtained against you and you haven't paid it. Your insurer will then pay and reclaim the costs from you..

What they are saying is that if you agree to to repay now then they will try and negotiate with the third party with a view to avoiding court and thus reducing the total cost of the claim.

I suspect if you do agree then you might rule out the opportunity of following the advice in my first paragraph so I'd do nothing without further advice.

londonTiger

what vaio said is sound. I would get independent advice for sure.

When I had an accident and it was a clear cut case where the other party was at fault. They put me through to a very charming person who sounded like a "mate" and fed a lot of BS to me - realise in hindsight they were just covering their backs. They wanted me to deal with the non-fault claim through them so they can make money.

Quentin

edsredshed wrote: »

I work for the NHS and given they don't provide us with pens or pencils I'm not holding out much hope that they will have covered me........

You misunderstand.

They should have ensured you were correctly insured before allowing you to visit patients using yor own car (presumably they pay you extra for your mileage?)

As previously posted, see your union rep about this.

Prothet_of_Doom

As an aside, how much would they have charged for business use insurance ? My insurer wanted 1/10 of jack all to add business cover, so It seems a bit mean.

Note to all people making a claim. Keep to the bear minimum of the facts.

You were travelling in a car. Full stop.
NOT
You were travelling between appointments in connection with your work.

Quentin

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

.......Note to all people making a claim. Keep to the bear minimum of the facts.

You were travelling in a car. Full stop.
NOT
You were travelling between appointments in connection with your work.

The problem would arise were you unconscious/dead following a crash you are to blame for, and someone else spilt the beans about the journey.

Much easier to get busines cover from the outset, or refuse to do business journeys in your own car if you aren't covered for them.

chrisw

Quentin wrote: »

You misunderstand.

They should have ensured you were correctly insured before allowing you to visit patients using yor own car (presumably they pay you extra for your mileage?)

As previously posted, see your union rep about this.

Or it may be the other way round, that by claiming mileage expenses you are certifying that you are covered to drive on business. My works expenses policy (Local Government) is quite clear on this. You were effectively driving uninsured and claiming expenses to which you weren't entitled so your employer may also take a dim view of this.

londonTiger

chrisw wrote: »

Or it may be the other way round, that by claiming mileage expenses you are certifying that you are covered to drive on business. My works expenses policy (Local Government) is quite clear on this. You were effectively driving uninsured and claiming expenses to which you weren't entitled so your employer may also take a dim view of this.

A bit far fetched, employer will not do this. You're entitled to mileage payments based on the miles you drive. It's a set amount by HMRC. Insurance is a seperate issue. They might have a word about OP not reading employee contracts regarding insurance. They certainly wouldn't give you a hard time about the 45p per mile entitlement which the NHS has no say over.

Quentin

chrisw wrote: »

..... My works expenses policy (Local Government) is quite clear on this. You were effectively driving uninsured and claiming expenses to which you weren't entitled so your employer may also take a dim view of this.

Ignore the scare mongering about "claiming expenses you weren't entitled.....your employer may take a dim view ......"

The post confirms that a good employer should exercise their duty of care and ensure employees don't undertake business journeys without insurance cover.

The OP may not have been made aware by her employer which is why it could be the avenue to explore over this.