Insurance question

DUTR

ic wrote: »

This is one reason why insurers ask where you park your car at night. Park on your driveway or in a garage and you're far less likely to suffer opportunistic theft, crashes or vandalism. I live on a main road where most houses don't have driveways. In the past ten years I've seen cars written off by an old man falling asleep at the wheel, another by a drunk driver, another clipped by a lorry. There has also been spates of cars being keyed and having their mirrors ripped off. I've never had any trouble parked tucked away on the drive.

When I visited my GF I parked on her front garden, when she visited I told her to put the car around the back, she always used to say it'll be all right on the road, until she saw a car mirror get clipped.

dacouch

ic wrote: »

This is one reason why insurers ask where you park your car at night. Park on your driveway or in a garage and you're far less likely to suffer opportunistic theft, crashes or vandalism. I live on a main road where most houses don't have driveways. In the past ten years I've seen cars written off by an old man falling asleep at the wheel, another by a drunk driver, another clipped by a lorry. There has also been spates of cars being keyed and having their mirrors ripped off. I've never had any trouble parked tucked away on the drive.

There are a few Insurers who offer cheaper rates for customers who park there cars on the road rather than their drive or garage. It does not apply to all of their customers but appears to be linked to the relatively recent trend of stealing executive cars by breaking into the house. I assume the logic being if the car is not on the drive or in the garage the thieves do not know which house to target

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

Which bit of civil law and how negligence do you want us to explain?

The very basic principle of it is that you're liable if you were negligent. To be negligent the incident needs to be avoidable by a reasonable man.

So the drunk driver is liable for the entire damage he has done as the accident was avoidable. The OP is not negligent (Liable) as he could not reasonably have avoided the damage to his neighboors car.

In the same way if you have a heart attack at the wheel of a car and had no previous heart problems then you would generally not be classed as being negligent and thus liable as it could reasonably be predicted you would have a heart attack.

There are plenty of websites explaining the principle of negligence and liability on UK websites out there.

Incidently I believe in Jesus and Noah as much as I believe in your other imaginary friend

Well it will be interesting to read the outcome of that terrible fatal accident in Glasgow just before christmas last year.

As written, we will have to agree to differ on the view points of how the claim will be processed, although we agree that the driver of the vehicle's policy will ulitmately cover the costs.

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

Well it will be interesting to read the outcome of that terrible fatal accident in Glasgow just before christmas last year.

As written, we will have to agree to differ on the view points of how the claim will be processed, although we agree that the driver of the vehicle's policy will ulitmately cover the costs.

The accident is likely to be a case of automatism (Google it) and as such the insurers of the bin lorry are unlikely to be liable under civil law as there appears to be no negligence eg it was an unexpected medical problem.

Due to the publicity of the case there's a strong chance that the Insurers will pay out even if they're not liable especially as the council probably self insure either fully or partially.

Here is an example of an automatism accident where the Insurer refused to pay out as the driver was not liable under civil law as there was no negligence

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/3865284.print/

Yes it appears we will have to disagree, as I know I'm correct and I also know you're incorrect. Your lack of understanding of how civil law relates to negligence seems to make you think I'm wrong and you're right.

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

The accident is likely to be a case of automatism (Google it) and as such the insurers of the bin lorry are unlikely to be liable under civil law as there appears to be no negligence eg it was an unexpected medical problem.

Due to the publicity of the case there's a strong chance that the Insurers will pay out even if they're not liable especially as the council probably self insure either fully or partially.

Here is an example of an automatism accident where the Insurer refused to pay out as the driver was not liable under civil law as there was no negligence

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/3865284.print/

Yes it appears we will have to disagree, as I know I'm correct and I also know you're incorrect. Your lack of understanding of how civil law relates to negligence seems to make you think I'm wrong and you're right.

It's at that point I doubt your intelligence, for me at the end of the day it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong, as said I will await the update from the OP on how the claim proceeds.

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

It's at that point I doubt your intelligence, for me at the end of the day it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong, as said I will await the update from the OP on how the claim proceeds.

I noticed from your incorrect advice early in this thread your lack of intelligence especially when you used an American website as a source of reference and did not have the sense to amend what you copied and pasted so we could not just google it...

It matters to me that the advice on MSE is correct as otherwise the OP gets the wrong advice and anyone who reads of arrives at this thread also gets the wrong advice.

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

I noticed from your incorrect advice early in this thread your lack of intelligence especially when you used an American website as a source of reference and did not have the sense to amend what you copied and pasted so we could not just google it...

It matters to me that the advice on MSE is correct as otherwise the OP gets the wrong advice and anyone who reads of arrives at this thread also gets the wrong advice.

Why would I wish to do that?, as said the bottom line is we will have to await the update from the OP on how the claim is handled .
Any advice via this forum is always with the disclaimer that it is not a reference and the reader must seek their own end of line guidance.
How the claim is handled and processed is not advice it's just an opinion and may vary from reader to reader, that's why it doesn't matter at the end of the day.
Look at the other accident opinion thread, I'm sure if the poster had asked the question earlier, the majority would have just said it's a clear cut... the other driver is liable, however months later he has recieved a letter now challenging the liablity.

austin

No matter what the outcome is OP, guess what, you're going to have to declare this to insurers for the next 5 years. So you've got him to thank when your premium renewal sky-rockets, even though you weren't even in the car.

Spicy_McHaggis

DUTR wrote: »

It's at that point I doubt your intelligence, for me at the end of the day it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong, as said I will await the update from the OP on how the claim proceeds.

It does matter though, you are giving out incorrect advice. It's been pointed out to you and backed up with evidence, yet still you fail to accept this.

straighttalker

I'm a solicitor who has previously handled claims on behalf of many Insurers for nigh on 8 years and have to say that DUTR is wrong. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Why even muddy the waters with the maxim that the insurers have to bear their own costs which doesn't even have any meaning in these circumstances. It's like when people talk about insurers going "knock for knock'. First of all, most of the time they don't even know what the term means and second of all, the concept is hardly ever used nowadays.

DUTR, your advice is clearly wrong. You may have a mate who works in insurance but people in insurance as well as the police as proven in this instance get things wrong.

In order to highlight how wrong you are, let's imagine that the insurers or the owner of the vehicle which the OP's vehicle got shunted into do not make a successful recovery of their outlay from the OP. When they can't make a recovery, their only recourse is to issue proceedings. I'll start you off by drafting the first part of the Particulars of Claim and you finish it off...

"The Claimant claims for damages which arose out of an incident which occurred on __/__/____ . The Claimant's vehicle was parked on Smith Street. The Defendant's vehicle was parked behind the Claimant's vehicle. Both vehicle's were parked up and vacant at all material times. A third party was driving along Smith Street and collided with the Defendant's vehicle thereby causing it to be shunted into the Claimant's properly parked vehicle causing damage to the Claimant's vehicle. The Defendant was negligent because..."

DUTR, could you please particularise the heads of negligence which you consider the OP to have committed to prove your case?

If the above pleaded case came to me as solicitor for the OP, I'd first of all make an application to get the claim struck out because there is clearly no claim to answer. Secondly, I'd have to issue my own Part 20 claim to ensure that the drunk driver gets pulled into the same set of proceedings to indemnify my own client for the costs and damages sought by the original claimant. Of course I'd successfully be able to defend the claim in which case the Claimant would have to pay my own costs of defending the original claim and the drunk driver would have to pay me the costs of issuing the Part 20 claim against him. The judge would probably ask the question why the claimant didn't issue against the drunk driver in the first place.

I'm with dacouch on this one.