Drunk driver writes off car but we are laible for third party damage!

vaio

The liability of the insurer comes from RTA s151 (2)b as long as the driver is identified

The right of recovery comes from s151 (8). This includes recovery from the driver as well as recovery from anyone insured by the policy *if* they caused or permitted the use.

Worth pointing out that just becasue the family didn't proceed with a theft/TWOC case that doesn't automatically mean they did cause or permit the use although obviously it will make it harder to convince a judge they didn't.

Having said that, as the police were involved the fact that the daughter didn't get prosecuted for causing or permitting works in her favour

dacouch

InsideInsurance wrote: »

This all revolves round if she gave permission for them to take the vehicle or not.

By not pressing for charges against the driver for taking the vehicle, for simplicities and shorter words we will call it theft even if it may be TWOC or not etc, then it is assumed she gave permission. As such we assume the driver is named on her policy and so is an uninsured driver however her insurers are the RTA insurers of the vehicle and so are required to handle claims against the vehicle in most of these circumstances.

Under both common law and normally written into the wording of the policy the insurer has the right to recover their outlay from the insured when their actions result in the insurer having to act as the RTA insurers. An uninsured driver also wont have cover for own vehicle damage.


If she had pressed for charges then it'd be a theft claim and her own damages would be covered. As to the third parties, back in my claims days it would depend on if the thief was identified or not, and I cannot remember which way round it was. In one case the insurer has to deal with it as the RTA insurer and in the other they don't. If they do have to pay out then there is no right of recover against the insured as they've done nothing wrong. In both cases the insurers have the right of recover from the theif

The problem now of cause is that they know you didnt press charges and so if you changed your mind then there will be concerns you are lying to cover your !!!!!! for the monies and so they may wait until the court case.

I think you mean the driver was not named on the policy.

rev_henry

thenudeone wrote: »

Rubbish on so many counts.

Theft is always theft if the person intended to permanently deprive the owner of it, regardless of whether they know the owner, have the keys or whatever. But proving someone's intention isn't always easy. All the "thief" has to say is: "I was intending to use it for a bit then leave it somewhere it could be found and returned to the owner" and theft becomes difficult to prove.
To prevent people using this excuse, separate offences were created for taking a (motor) vehicle without the owner's consent (TWOC), and a similar offence exists for pedal cycles too.

I'd be surprised if any policy covering theft didn't also automatically cover TWOC, although there may well be exclusions (for theft and TWOC) where they keys were left with the vehicle or if it was taken by someone in the owners' family or household.

Which insurance company was involved? I'm sure we'd like to view the policy ourselves to see what's excluded.

I believe TWOC was introduced when kids started stealing cars to joyride and dump. There was probably some test case in which it was decided that this wasn't theft as they couldn't prove intent to permanently deprive, like they could if a car was stolen to order or whatever.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

NO ONE is a friend if they TAKE your car END OF!


To take it drunk as a skunk and plough into other peoples belongings DESERVES the book thrown at them.


Then protect them because of their future prospects whilst your immediate future and security is threatened with financial ruin, seems idiotic and reckless attitude to me.


Its either he was given the keys or he stole/took the keys and whilst you want to play hard done by have a thought to the poor people that this idiot affected, the person who's van was smashed the person who's car was smashed and those who have to foot the bill to have their cars repaired while you, your daughter and her "friend" pass the buck to eachother.


I reckon there was a behind the scenes deal here, they pay for her car in exchange for her not pressing charges for theft, say it was twoc, he takes the lesser charges and keeps shtum about being given the keys, she gets no charges for permitting and she gets her car repaired or replaced and everyone goes home happy, pay up to the victims is my suggestion and don't moan about the insurers clauses when your plans fall foul of what was expected.

londonTiger

so let get this clear. isnurance will not cover in case of twoc and daughter has to pay for each damage caused by daughters friend. daughter is held liable even though she was not driving!

!!!! me. id hate to be in her shoes.

matttye

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

NO ONE is a friend if they TAKE your car END OF!


To take it drunk as a skunk and plough into other peoples belongings DESERVES the book thrown at them.


Then protect them because of their future prospects whilst your immediate future and security is threatened with financial ruin, seems idiotic and reckless attitude to me.


Its either he was given the keys or he stole/took the keys and whilst you want to play hard done by have a thought to the poor people that this idiot affected, the person who's van was smashed the person who's car was smashed and those who have to foot the bill to have their cars repaired while you, your daughter and her "friend" pass the buck to eachother.


I reckon there was a behind the scenes deal here, they pay for her car in exchange for her not pressing charges for theft, say it was twoc, he takes the lesser charges and keeps shtum about being given the keys, she gets no charges for permitting and she gets her car repaired or replaced and everyone goes home happy, pay up to the victims is my suggestion and don't moan about the insurers clauses when your plans fall foul of what was expected.

You can't choose to 'say it was TWOC' instead of theft. It's just massively likely to have been TWOC as the person who took the car was a friend (not a very good one), and was unlikely to have intended to take the car permanently. In such circumstances it cannot be theft. You don't get to pick and choose what the charge is like you're suggesting.

If you reread the post you'll find it's TWOC they're not pressing charges for, but the friend was still done for drink driving.

Nodding_Donkey

londonTiger wrote: »

so let get this clear. isnurance will not cover in case of twoc and daughter has to pay for each damage caused by daughters friend. daughter is held liable even though she was not driving!

!!!! me. id hate to be in her shoes.

Maybe you should read the thread again. You obviously haven't got it clear.

jamesmorgan

Most insurance policies exclude cover for any damage after TWOC from families/friends. This is a reasonable position as it will be normal for families/friends to be able to access car keys without too much difficulty. Covering this as an insurable risk is too great for an insurance company. So when driven after a TWOC the car is effectively uninsured. The driver should therefore also be prosecuted for driving without insurance.

However, under the RTA, if a car is driven by an uninsured driver but the car still has an active insurance policy, then the insurance company is liable to pay for any 3rd party claims. It is then expected that the insurance company will try to recover these costs from the responsible person. They have a choice who they deem to be responsible:

a) the driver
b) the owner - esp if they believe the owner approved the taking of the car

If they decide to pursue the owner and a court agrees with them that the owner was responsible so forces a payout, then the only action left for the owner is to pursue the driver to cover their losses. Bottom line is that it is down to proving who was responsible for the action, and this will ultimately only be decided by a court of law.

As the owner, the most pressing action is to try to convince the insurance company that they will have more luck trying to press for compensation from the driver. The easiest way to do this is to encourage the police to prosecute for TWOC (it may be too late for this now).

vaio

jamesmorgan wrote: »

........However, under the RTA, if a car is driven by an uninsured driver but the car still has an active insurance policy, then the insurance company is liable to pay for any 3rd party claims. It is then expected that the insurance company will try to recover these costs from the responsible person. They have a choice who they deem to be responsible:

a) the driver
b) the owner - esp if they believe the owner approved the taking of the car

........

it's not "especially if they believe the owner approved....", it's *only*

facade

jamesmorgan wrote: »

However, under the RTA, if a car is driven by an uninsured driver but the car still has an active insurance policy, then the insurance company is liable to pay for any 3rd party claims. It is then expected that the insurance company will try to recover these costs from the responsible person. They have a choice who they deem to be responsible:

In this case, the policyholder would appear to be the person to pursue, as they put the insurance company in the position of having to pay out (and they really really hate that) by breaching the terms of their policy and allowing someone to drive who is not permitted by the policy.

As above, the policy holder can then in turn take steps to recover money from the driver.

(Same thing applies if you sell your car, don't cancel the insurance, and the new owner drives uninsured and crashes it)