Was involved in a car accident earlier today, whos liable?

Spicy_McHaggis

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

They caused or permitted their passenger to endanger the safety of another road user or their vehicle.


Since you're clearly spoiling for a fight over this, I'm going to just leave it there. Obviously I have a different moral code to you as I don't believe the OP should be able to hide behind policy wording.

I asked this the other day. Under the use, cause or permit, the certainty haven't cause the door to be opened and I would say it's a stretch to the legislation to permit it to be opened. The passenger has however opened the door and caused danger so the ops insurance will be liable.

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I asked this the other day. Under the use, cause or permit, the certainty haven't cause the door to be opened and I would say it's a stretch to the legislation to permit it to be opened. The passenger has however opened the door and caused danger so the ops insurance will be liable.

So if the OP didn't cause or permit the door to be opened, the OP did not cause the accident.

Why would the OP's insurance pay a 3rd party for damage that the OP did not cause?

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

So was this a case where you denied being involved in the accident?

Nope.

This was a case where i had an accident at walking speed. There was no damage to the other car (verified by lots of close up HD video & pictures)

Insurance paid out regardless (claimed £500 to respray the undamaged bumper and £1000 hire car charges) of any evidence i had because if they took it to court, to defend it with my legal cover it would have cost them more money and time to defend, that it would have been to pay out.

At the end of the day they're a business and need money to survive so they'll take the lowest cost option, regardless of how it affects their customer a lot of the time.

The insurance company will determine if it's cheaper to dispute the claim for the OP of this forum, or to pay out even if the passenger isn't covered.
It's not black and white and each case will be looked at individually.
Lots of insurance companies have paid for this exact thing in the past before, and lots have disputed it.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

So if the OP didn't cause or permit the door to be opened, the OP did not cause the accident.

Why would the OP's insurance pay a 3rd party for damage that the OP did not cause?

Nobody said the OP caused the accident, the insured car under the control of the OP was involved and hence the 3rd party can claim against that policy. It's still interesting that the OP refuses to post what the 3rd party had said, if they know they are not in the wrong then why are they even contemplating paying for the damage themselves?

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

This was a case where i had an accident at walking speed.

So you negligently drove into a 3rd party and your insurance paid up, as you would expect.

Not exactly the same scenario as the OP, where the accident was not caused by them.

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

Nobody said the OP caused the accident, the insured car under the control of the OP was involved and hence the 3rd party can claim against that policy. It's still interesting that the OP refuses to post what the 3rd party had said, if they know they are not in the wrong then why are they even contemplating paying for the damage themselves?

The accident was not caused by the "control" the OP had of the car. The car was parked.

The cause of the accident was not down to the OP, so the OP's insurance does not have to pay, unless the OP wants them to.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

The accident was not caused by the "control" the OP had of the car. The car was parked.

The cause of the accident was not down to the OP, so the OP's insurance does not have to pay, unless the OP wants them to.

So what are they worrying about?

Spicy_McHaggis

Altarf wrote: »

So if the OP didn't cause or permit the door to be opened, the OP did not cause the accident.

Why would the OP's insurance pay a 3rd party for damage that the OP did not cause?

I've heard that insurance pays out to a third party if your car is stolen and involved in a crash. Are you saying that is wrong too?

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1242726

It does because people here don't seem to understand the concept of negligence.

And the last post of that thread reads
"Just thought that I would update on this since people so rarely do.

The third party settled insurer settled the matter in full. It seems that not even the other side's insurance bought the third party's argument though I understand that there was some argument and it did take months to sort."

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I've heard that insurance pays out to a third party if your car is stolen and involved in a crash. Are you saying that is wrong too?

Nope, separate clause in insurance contracts specifically covering this situation, where the cover is not an option. For example in mine -

You are not covered for any of the following:
1. Use of the vehicle

When your vehicle:
- is being driven by or is in the charge of any person not allowed to do so under your Certificate of Insurance other than in an emergency as defined under Part 2 of the ‘Liability to others’ section;
- is being used other than for the purposes shown in your Certificate of Insurance
- is being driven with your permission by any person who you know has never held a driving licence; is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence; or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence

This exception does not apply if your vehicle is:
- being serviced or repaired by a member of the motor trade;
- stolen or taken away without your permission;
- being parked by a car-parking service.