Insurance question

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

How do you work that out?

Some policies hold a clause which may invalidate the policy .

Quentin wrote: »

Maybe he's in the police.

No need to be in the police to work that out, OP's car hit the car in front of his. The other parked car owner would report that.

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

Some policies hold a clause which may invalidate the policy .




No need to be in the police to work that out, OP's car hit the car in front of his. The other parked car owner would report that.

They still have to pay out under the third party section to third parties.

Spicy_McHaggis

DUTR wrote: »

Some policies hold a clause which may invalidate the policy.

What completely remove third party liability?

No chance but having your own car repaired is another matter.

DUTR

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

What completely remove third party liability?

No chance but having your own car repaired is another matter.

True, not forgetting they can they attempt to recover their costs from the policy holder.

Aretnap

Section 148 of the Road Traffic Act makes it impossible for insurers to avoid their liabilities to third parties on the grounds of the driver's drunkenness - it comes under "the physical or mental condition of the driver".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

If their policy is worded correctly they could subsequently attempt to recover the payout from the driver, but that has no effect on the third party whose car was damaged - he can still claim from the drunk driver's insurance.

dacouch

Aretnap wrote: »

Section 148 of the Road Traffic Act makes it impossible for insurers to avoid their liabilities to third parties on the grounds of the driver's drunkenness - it comes under "the physical or mental condition of the driver".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

If their policy is worded correctly they could subsequently attempt to recover the payout from the driver, but that has no effect on the third party whose car was damaged - he can still claim from the drunk driver's insurance.

They also have the lack of driving licence to use against the policyholder.

I suspect the employer will start checking the licences of his employees if he receives a bill for upwards of £10k

c1981

Thanks all.

The driver borrowed the van from a friend who i guess works for yodel judging by the delivery slips that fell out of the door lol.

Its just very frustrating as my car was parked legally outside my house, and this person very obviously shouldnt have been driving, and no accident would have happened had he made the right choice not to get in the van.

Spicy_McHaggis

DUTR wrote: »

True, not forgetting they can they attempt to recover their costs from the policy holder.

I don't think the policyholder is liable in this case.

They would have to go after the driver.

Nodding_Donkey

Most Yodel delivery drivers are self employed but as long as the van was insured the insurers will have to pay whether the driver was on the policy or not.

Car_54

I think we're making it over-complicated.

My car (A) is parked. Your car (B) hits it.

My claim is against you. If you were pushed by car C, then ok, you have a claim against him, but that's not my problem.