Was in a Car crash Accident today involving 4 cars?

Master_Blaster

bery_451 wrote: »

Like I said earlier its not my fault because driver admitted liability cause its clear that I had right of way and there's witnesses (owners of the other 2 parked up cars) saying he admitted liability to them as well.

So what gave Churchill said?

victor2

bery_451 wrote: »

I do have the female policy holder name and address details and she said shes insured with Churchill.


Post #10 earlier in this thread said that the insurer Churchill is legally responsible so hopefully it wont be a lengthy battle.

But she wasn't driving. If she has insured the car for only her to drive, Churchill aren't going to be interested when they find out she wasn't the driver.
If the person driving was a named driver, then you might have a valid claim and Churchill should handle it on behalf of their client.

Master_Blaster

victor2 wrote: »

But she wasn't driving. If she has insured the car for only her to drive, Churchill aren't going to be interested when they find out she wasn't the driver.
If the person driving was a named driver, then you might have a valid claim and Churchill should handle it on behalf of their client.

Ultimately that wil not matter if the driver was liable they would be forced to cover third party losses.

InsideInsurance

bery_451 wrote: »

What about involving a no win no fee accident management company that does all the work for me? I don't think I have the legal expertise and the time to do all the work myself.

Youre mixing terms. No win, no fee is solicitors and for them to be interested you need to be making a claim that falls under the Fast Track of the court system or higher so £1,000 of injury or £10,000 of property damage. Below this they cannot claim fees from the other side and so arent interested.

Accident Management Companies/ Credit Hire companies may be interested as they make their money by overcharging for hire and/or repairs.

This may be an option if Churchill arent willing to help but they may also not be interested if they think there could be an issue with the Third Party's insurance.


You still havent said what Churchill said when you called them?

victor2

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Ultimately that wil not matter if the driver was liable they would be forced to cover third party losses.

Isn't the emphasis on Ultimately there?
I'm not familiar with the process, but if it turns out the driver was not insured, don't the claimants have to go through the MIB?

Master_Blaster

victor2 wrote: »

Isn't the emphasis on Ultimately there?
I'm not familiar with the process, but if it turns out the driver was not insured, don't the claimants have to go through the MIB?

Not if the vehicle is insured.

AdrianC

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Ultimately that wil not matter if the driver was liable they would be forced to cover third party losses.

If the driver has cover through another insurer via a driving-other-cars clause, then Churchill are off the hook.
If he doesn't, then the fun is really going to start, because not only is there the possibility of a driving-without-insurance prosecution for him, but she may also be up for causing/permitting, unless she says that he took the car without permission...

Master_Blaster

AdrianC wrote: »

If the driver has cover through another insurer via a driving-other-cars clause, then Churchill are off the hook.
If he doesn't, then the fun is really going to start, because not only is there the possibility of a driving-without-insurance prosecution for him, but she may also be up for causing/permitting, unless she says that he took the car without permission...

Problem there lies in she says she did not give him permission and refuses to give a statement and it will be back to a simple no insurance.

InsideInsurance

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Problem there lies in she says she did not give him permission and refuses to give a statement and it will be back to a simple no insurance.

If she says her boyfriend took it without her permissions she'll have to make a statement about the theft and identify him thus Churchill is still on the hook though it basically counts as a theft claim for her so her vehicle damage is covered and they pursue him not her for the money.

If she refuses to make a statement/ wont press charges of theft then Churchill will take it that she did give permission and as such deal with it as an uninsured driver of their car, no cover for damage to her car and Churchill will attempt to recover the outlay from her or him. Now the slight issue is if Churchill dont roll over immediately then the driver must be identified but given the situation it shouldnt be too hard to solve.

Master_Blaster

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If she says her boyfriend took it without her permissions she'll have to make a statement about the theft and identify him thus Churchill is still on the hook though it basically counts as a theft claim for her and they pursue him not her for the money.

If she refuses to make a statement/ wont press charges of theft then Churchill will take it that she did give permission and as such deal with it as an uninsured driver of their car and attempt to recover the outlay from her or him. Now the slight issue is if Churchill dont roll over immediately then the driver must be identified but given the situation it shouldnt be too hard to solve.

As far as I am aware there is no law forcing her to do this. She can tell the police he took it and refuse to say anymore.