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

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

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."

Because the insurer considered that the driver was negligent by not putting the handbrake on!

What would the outcome have been if they had, but the handbrake cable snapped?

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

Because the insurer considered that the driver was negligent by not putting the handbrake on!

What would the outcome have been if they had, but the handbrake cable snapped?

It's no point worrying about the what if, the case you were making is that the insurers would not pay out to the 3rd party, in this thread the guy did apply his handbrake .

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

It's no point worrying about the what if, the case you were making is that the insurers would not pay out to the 3rd party, in this thread the guy did apply his handbrake .

But where does it say his car insurance is paying the 3rd party?

rs65

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?

Because most motor policies will cover the liability of passengers, such as:-
Cover under this section will also apply on the same basis, for the following persons:
Any passenger travelling in or getting into or out of your vehicle

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

But where does it say his car insurance is paying the 3rd party?

I'm on about the thread you posted, the guy with the Golf, is not trying to worm his way out of the insurance reimbursing the neighbour.

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

I'm on about the thread you posted, the guy with the Golf, is not trying to worm his way out of the insurance reimbursing the neighbour.

The thread where you failed to appreciate the importance of negligence to create a liability.

Altarf

rs65 wrote: »

Because most motor policies will cover the liability of passengers, such as:-
Cover under this section will also apply on the same basis, for the following persons:
Any passenger travelling in or getting into or out of your vehicle

They will *if* the insured driver wants the cover to extend to them.

To again quote the actual words from my insurance policy

"This policy covers you for all amounts which you legally have to pay as a result of an accident involving your vehicle"


"Cover provided for other people
If you give your permission, we will provide the same cover to the following people:
...
any person travelling in or getting into or out of your vehicle"

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

The thread where you failed to appreciate the importance of negligence to create a liability.

Which thread was that?
For much of this thread it appears you are promoting that the OP does not have a worry, 1st party's just simply deny liability and their insurance won't pay out and it's as easy and clear cut as that, along with every reader of this thread, you know the OP's insurance will re-imburse the 3rd party by funding the repair of the car or a replacement offer. There is blame so there is a claim.

welfayre

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?

The OP pulled over and parked in a "drop off zone" with the sole intention of letting a passenger exit their vehicle. I'd say that means the OP permitted the door to be opened unless they expected the passenger to teleport from the seat to the pavement...

rs65

Altarf wrote: »

They will *if* the insured driver wants the cover to extend to them.

In most circumstances I think you would want the cover to apply - unless you really didn't like your passenger.