Insurance question

Car_54

DUTR wrote: »

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?

It doesn't matter - neither will pay.

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

Well this post.



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.

I meant they may not even be succesful in getting a payout at all :eek:
Even taking away the fact the moving vehicle contains an intoxicated driver. He reports that he hit a vehicle registration blah blah.
Of course it's the legal policy that will have to deal.

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

I meant they may not even be succesful in getting a payout at all :eek:
Even taking away the fact the moving vehicle contains an intoxicated driver. He reports that he hit a vehicle registration blah blah.
Of course it's the legal policy that will have to deal.

I don't understand what this actually means.

Are you accepting that their needs to be negligence to be able to claim from the OP's Insurers or are you still saying that the other parked car is able to claim from the OP even though there was no negligence by the OP. The only negligence being from the drunk driver.

rs65

DUTR wrote: »

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.

DUTR, I think you should stop making things up - you aren't helping.

Motorway pile ups are different as most cars in a pile up have a driver and establishing liability can be difficult.

In the OPs case, there was no driver in a parked/unattended car so the insurers of that car can not have any liability.

DUTR

rs65 wrote: »

DUTR, I think you should stop making things up - you aren't helping.

Motorway pile ups are different as most cars in a pile up have a driver and establishing liability can be difficult.

In the OPs case, there was no driver in a parked/unattended car so the insurers of that car can not have any liability.

We can all think as we like as for all but the OP, the question is hypothetical, I guess that the car where the handbrake fails as it has no driver the insurers for that car are also not liable? According to your logic.

There is no hinderance in any of the replies, the OP will have to sort it via his insurer, as you can see from the thread there is more than one path to success.
As for the multiple, each insurer bears their own loss not just the insurer of the rear most vehicle in the pile up.

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

We can all think as we like as for all but the OP, the question is hypothetical, I guess that the car where the handbrake fails as it has no driver the insurers for that car are also not liable? According to your logic.

There is no hinderance in any of the replies, the OP will have to sort it via his insurer, as you can see from the thread there is more than one path to success.
As for the multiple, each insurer bears their own loss not just the insurer of the rear most vehicle in the pile up.

Funnily enough where a hand brake fails and the car has been maintained correctly the owner of the car would not normally be liable.

The same way in that if you had a heart attack while driving with no previous medical history / symptoms you would not normally be liable.

To claim off someone else they have to be negligent eg the incident could reasonably be avoided

Your examples in this thread have been way off the mark

forgotmyname

DUTR wrote: »

Which path did you take?

I didnt do either, It was a dented bootlid on a car that only cost £300. This was back when i used a local broker and popped in to ask questions and pay them etc..

I dont think they ever mentioned it to the actual insurer. It didnt affect future quotes.

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

I don't understand what this actually means.

Are you accepting that their needs to be negligence to be able to claim from the OP's Insurers or are you still saying that the other parked car is able to claim from the OP even though there was no negligence by the OP. The only negligence being from the drunk driver.

I'm saying there has to be liability to a policyholder.
Car A is moving, B & C are parked, car A hits B which subsequently hits C.
Driver A fills in his report that the vehicle he was driving hit car B.
Car owner C reports that car B hits his car.
The insurer of car B can forward the claim to the policy holder of A .

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

I'm saying there has to be liability to a policyholder.
Car A is moving, B & C are parked, car A hits B which subsequently hits C.
Driver A fills in his report that the vehicle he was driving hit car B.
Car owner C reports that car B hits his car.
The insurer of car B can forward the claim to the policy holder of A .

Do you understand that liability requires there to be negligence?

Without negligence there is no liability.

On this basis can you explain how the OP has been negligent, how could he have reasonably avoided damaging the other car

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

Do you understand that liability requires there to be negligence?

Without negligence there is no liability.

On this basis can you explain how the OP has been negligent, how could he have reasonably avoided damaging the other car

I'm not sure why you are wanting to debate about it?
You don't agree which is fair enough, however I've just asked my mate who works in the industry as a similar incident occured across the road from him and he says it was resolved as I wrote, the clim on car B's policy will just show notified and fully recovered.