We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Insurance question
Comments
-
A police woman told me the same many years ago when a car crashed into a parked vehicle behind mine and push it into mine.
She said i claim from the neighbours car and theirs claim all costs from the drunk driver.
When i called my insurance they said no. I claim from my policy or the drunk drivers policy.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
forgotmyname wrote: »A police woman told me the same many years ago when a car crashed into a parked vehicle behind mine and push it into mine.
She said i claim from the neighbours car and theirs claim all costs from the drunk driver.
When i called my insurance they said no. I claim from my policy or the drunk drivers policy.
Which path did you take?0 -
The correct path I assume which was to claim from the driver who was liable for the accident.
The car that was pushed into the car in front was not negligent so is not liable.
The correct path is as Car54 and myself explained, what many of you seem to forget is that claims are dealt with on fact and logic not empathy and emotion.
The driver of the car collided with a vehicle and technically should furninsh their details to the owner/keeper.
I agree ultimately their own insurance will more than likely re-imburse both parties .0 -
The correct path is as Car54 and myself explained, what many of you seem to forget is that claims are dealt with on fact and logic not empathy and emotion.
The driver of the car collided with a vehicle and technically should furninsh their details to the owner/keeper.
I agree ultimately their own insurance will more than likely re-imburse both parties .
Claims are dealt with by under civil law by who has negligence, if there is no negligence then the Insurer does not have any liability to pay.
How can you say "The driver of the car collided with a vehicle and technically should furninsh their details to the owner/keeper."
The OP's car was parked up with no driver, what negligence are you saying he has, is he negligent due to where he parked?
Your advice thus far on this thread has been somewhat off the mark...I guess though that as the offending party was intoxicated, there may not even be a policy to claim against :eek:0 -
The correct path is as Car54 and myself explained, what many of you seem to forget is that claims are dealt with on fact and logic not empathy and emotion.
The driver of the car collided with a vehicle and technically should furninsh their details to the owner/keeper.
I agree ultimately their own insurance will more than likely re-imburse both parties .
think it's a good idea involved should share details when possible with things like this, regardless of who is at fault. It makes things go a bit quicker with the insurance side.
But whoever's stuff gets damaged in the accident can only claim off of who ever is liable. Liability is determined by negligence. Since the parked car wasn't doing anything wrong, they aren't liable so their insurance wouldn't pay out.
The drunk driver is the one liable due to negligence in this situation.
The ones were the insurance claims from the car behind them and so forth as you hear about are the ones where liability can't be determined as easily so insurance settle as it's cheaper than to drag it out.All your base are belong to us.0 -
Claims are dealt with by under civil law by who has negligence, if there is no negligence then the Insurer does not have any liability to pay.
How can you say "The driver of the car collided with a vehicle and technically should furninsh their details to the owner/keeper."
The OP's car was parked up with no driver, what negligence are you saying he has, is he negligent due to where he parked?
Your advice thus far on this thread has been somewhat off the mark...
Where did I say they were negligent?
As said and will say again, the forefront parked car will have to raise a claim from the parked car (that doesn't mean they will be succesful) .
Also just to add, we don't know where the cars were parked (but fair to assume in the case of the thread that both cars were parked legally.0 -
Retrogamer wrote: »think it's a good idea involved should share details when possible with things like this, regardless of who is at fault. It makes things go a bit quicker with the insurance side.
But whoever's stuff gets damaged in the accident can only claim off of who ever is liable. Liability is determined by negligence. Since the parked car wasn't doing anything wrong, they aren't liable so their insurance wouldn't pay out.
The drunk driver is the one liable due to negligence in this situation.
The ones were the insurance claims from the car behind them and so forth as you hear about are the ones where liability can't be determined as easily so insurance settle as it's cheaper than to drag it out.
So you are on the way to the airport on the motorway , sadly there is a nasty accident ahead and subsequently you are delayed to the extent that you miss the check in, do you claim off the party at fault car insurance or your travel insurance policy?0 -
Where did I say they were negligent?
As said and will say again, the forefront parked car will have to raise a claim from the parked car (that doesn't mean they will be succesful) .
Also just to add, we don't know where the cars were parked (but fair to assume in the case of the thread that both cars were parked legally.
Well this post.The correct path is as Car54 and myself explained, what many of you seem to forget is that claims are dealt with on fact and logic not empathy and emotion.
The driver of the car collided with a vehicle and technically should furninsh their details to the owner/keeper.
I agree ultimately their own insurance will more than likely re-imburse both parties .
To make this clear for you, the liability section of a policy pays out when the Insurer is liable. This means they pay out when their driver has been negligent, if there is no negligence then there is no payment unless the Insurer decide they wish to make a payment.
Your most recent post even admits the front car may not be successful in claiming from the OP's car.0 -
P.S Do you realise that this does not make sense in the context you've used it in.The OP is liable at present, that is not to say their insurers cannot claim from the offending party.
When you get muliple pile ups on the motorway this is what happens.
This is often phrased as the insurers bearing their own losses.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards