Help - Insurance claim rejected and whiplash

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

........And your "think long and hard" over a cancelled policy looks scare mongering - the OP states that the insurer is not considering cancelling the policy at all!

arcon5 wrote: »

.......May change if she decides she wants to take further action to force the insurance company to pay out!

One would hope the FOS would soon put them straight if they cancelled a policy they had previously agreed could continue just because the policyholder made a complaint.

I'd say vindictive action by an insurer would be automatically unfair

Rodney_Trotter

vaio wrote: »

If the OP didn't have any insurance at all then I'm pretty sure the employer would be liable under the duty of care/vicarious liability thing.

Whether this is still the case given the OP does have RTA151/Article 75 cover I'm less sure, hence the suggestion for legal advice

Really? Best cancel my insurance now and my employer will be responsible if I crash.

On your point of 151, are the police unlawfully seizing vehicles when someone doesn't have business cover?

londonTiger

Perhaps it could be argued that duty of care should have been exercised by employer when they were expecting employees to run around in their own cars doing their nursing duties. But it will highly doubt you can press it so far as to say that employer should be partly responsible for the accident.

As I said above - there will probably be a big section in the employee contract about driving to see patients and the business insurance will be cited and it will probably say employees accept they are wholly responsible for ensuring they have adequate insurance coverage to carry out their duties and see patients in their vehicle.

The employer isn't paying the insurance bills, therefore it is not their responsibility.

londonTiger

Anyway. OP needs independant legal adivce. Anywhere OP can go to get cheap/free legal advice? Don't nurses have unions and other charitable organisations who help them find housing and stuff? - maybe these guys will be able to point OP to a suitable solicitor.

Stooby2

One thing that might help the OP although it's a bit tenuous - was the original insurance arranged over the phone or online?

If it was over the phone and the OP is certain that visiting patients was mentioned, then the insurance company can be asked to provide or at least check any recording that was made of the call. Some companies record all calls, others just some. And as I have found when you dispute something, they often "can't find the recording" or "there was an issue with our recording equipment that day". But it might be worth a try and won't cost anything.

dacouch

spacey2012 wrote: »

Well as you have just seen in practice here, it does not.

Because she almost certainly has SDP & Commuting only rather than Class One Business Use.

Every Insurer I know of would cover a civil servant or local government officer for using the car in connection with the employers work under Class One Business Use unless they were performing proper hire and reward.

For the record Class One Business use is generally to the effect of "Use in connection with the Policyholders Business"

dacouch

londonTiger wrote: »

Perhaps it could be argued that duty of care should have been exercised by employer when they were expecting employees to run around in their own cars doing their nursing duties. But it will highly doubt you can press it so far as to say that employer should be partly responsible for the accident.

As I said above - there will probably be a big section in the employee contract about driving to see patients and the business insurance will be cited and it will probably say employees accept they are wholly responsible for ensuring they have adequate insurance coverage to carry out their duties and see patients in their vehicle.

The employer isn't paying the insurance bills, therefore it is not their responsibility.

If an employee was the fault party in a accident causing death and was uninsured and / or did not have the correct licence. There's a chance the employer could be prosecuted for a serious Health and Safety breach if they cannot demonstrate they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the employee had insurance and / or a valid licence. Which is why most prudent employers take check employees (Even employees using their own vehicles for work purposes) driving licences and their insurance and take a copy at regular intervals eg every six monthish

Quentin

arcon5 wrote: »

.......Let's hope she doesn't get food poisoning, just in case her employer didn't tell her you have to cook chicken before eating it in your sandwiches at lunch.

May change if she decides she wants to take further action to force the insurance company to pay out!

OP, you can safely ignore arcon5's unpleasant post, and especially his suggestion that your insurer will take revenge by deciding to cancel your policy.

This is nonsense, and just evidence he is speaking from a position of ignorance, and irritation that his "advice" you face a lifetime of problems over a cancelled policy has been corrected.

Insurers are regulated, and your insurer has already assured you your policy is safe, and this episode is not down to you acting in any fraudulent/pre-mediditated etc way.

They wouldn't consider taking revenge against you by cancelling your policy! The regulator wouldn't permit it, though the insurer wouldn't try it on.

billa_champion

'...but I have just heard that she is nowclaiming whiplash - I know its possible but my gut feel is that she's taking the p###'
I know exactly where you are coming from. Had something similar just before Xmas. Kissed the car in front at literally 3mph and the woman came out all guns blazing 'oh my neck hurts!'.
Now she's claiming whiplash and damage to her car. Her car had NO damage - I took pictures of both cars and have two independent witnesses but they said my pictures were taken in the dark I replied well that's when the accident happened (about 4pm) but my car's headlights are clearly lighting up her car and showing no damage. My insurance company says she has history with them as she claimed for whiplash in July 2012 but with whiplash its impossible to prove otherwise so they said its probably cheaper to pay out and cover her car's damage!!:mad::mad::mad:
I am livid. If an insurer's medical team cant prove she hasn't got whiplash why can her medical team claim she has? Why does my word carry less weight than hers!:mad:
Its annoying how its always the decent, law abiding citizens that get shafted and the skivers and fraudsters get away with it day in, day out.

londonTiger

I think the duty of care brigade might be onto something.

Employer has to take measures to proactively check employees have adequate insurance cover.

Can't find an independent source. This is a little biased because it seems to have a vested interest in selling business insurance for cars.

http://www.vehicles-duty-of-care.com/vehicle-insurance.html