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

1234579

Comments

  • dacouch
    dacouch Posts: 21,636 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I'd be surprised if he posts again Straightalker to acknowledge his advice was wrong, maybe some more posts arguing his case.

    I have a feeling the OP will be back for advice as the other driver was uninsured and had no licence so the other Insurer may try and deny they are liable under the Road Traffic Act. If they do the OP should ignore the previous arguments on this thread an post up for advice as their are people on MSE who can advise on how to overcome this
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    dacouch wrote: »
    I'd be surprised if he posts again Straightalker to acknowledge his advice was wrong, maybe some more posts arguing his case.

    I have a feeling the OP will be back for advice as the other driver was uninsured and had no licence so the other Insurer may try and deny they are liable under the Road Traffic Act. If they do the OP should ignore the previous arguments on this thread an post up for advice as their are people on MSE who can advise on how to overcome this

    What advice? I said how I believe it will process, that is what I believe, as said only time will tell.
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    DUTR wrote: »
    What advice? I said how I believe it will process, that is what I believe, as said only time will tell.
    Trouble is you clearly posted in ignorance, yet when corrected chose to try and battle your way by attempting to use your mate's advice as corroboration/refer us to the warning that anyone can post etc etc instead of simply saying you were telling us your (mistaken) "beliefs".


    Fortunately others have taken the time to repeatedly correct you in depth so that no-one reading the thread can be mislead into thinking you are speaking with any authority on the topic whatsoever.
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Quentin wrote: »
    Trouble is you clearly posted in ignorance, yet when corrected chose to try and battle your way by attempting to use your mate's advice as corroboration/refer us to the warning that anyone can post etc etc instead of simply saying you were telling us your (mistaken) "beliefs".


    Fortunately others have taken the time to repeatedly correct you in depth so that no-one reading the thread can be mislead into thinking you are speaking with any authority on the topic whatsoever.

    There is nothing to correct, trouble is you are all trying to change what I believe the process may flow,
    Let me repeat
    A drives into B B collides with C, C will lodge the initial claim against B and B will lodge a claim against A, C's claim will get forwarded to A's insurer via B. B's record will show claim notified and resolved.
    Time will tell how it revolve's if the OP cares to update us.
    Whichever way it resolves doesn't matter as long as B is not with prejudice when all said and done.
    It's little different to those that believe Aston Villa will get relugated this season, they may do they may not, we won't know until the end of the season.
  • dacouch wrote: »
    I'd be surprised if he posts again Straightalker to acknowledge his advice was wrong, maybe some more posts arguing his case.

    I have a feeling the OP will be back for advice as the other driver was uninsured and had no licence so the other Insurer may try and deny they are liable under the Road Traffic Act. If they do the OP should ignore the previous arguments on this thread an post up for advice as their are people on MSE who can advise on how to overcome this

    Being hit by a driver who is drunk may make things a little more difficult but far from impossible. To aid the OP, if this happens and the vehicle driven by the drunk party has an insurance policy on it, that insurer cannot avoid their liabilities to any other third party ie the OP. The OP will still present his claim to the insurer of the drunk driver. They may choose to investigate the claim further and even if they decide they will not indemnify the drunk driver for whatever reason, they will still payout to the OP.

    After this, they will seek to recover their outlay from the drunk driver which is a matter between them and their driver. They may ask the OP to sign a Form of Assignment and Agreement which gives the insurer the right to pursue their outlay against the drunk driver. They may also ask the drunk driver to sign a form of Consent and Indemnity which allows them to deal with the claim presented against him how they see fit to ensure that it is dealt with a efficiently and as quickly as possible.

    It's the same position as if a vehicle was stolen and driven negligently causing loss and damage. Even though the car thief wasn't insured to drive the vehicle, the insurer concerned will still have to payout.

    That's why sometimes, if you end your policy early, the insurers ask for the return of the certificate of insurance. If they don't get that, sometimes the policy is still live and they would be liable for any damages even after the policy has been terminated.

    Sometimes, however, an insurer can seek a declaration that the policy is voided "ab initio" ie from the start. This can happen if the policyholder has with held or misinformed them of material pieces of information or fronting.
  • dacouch
    dacouch Posts: 21,636 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    DUTR wrote: »
    There is nothing to correct, trouble is you are all trying to change what I believe the process may flow,
    Let me repeat
    A drives into B B collides with C, C will lodge the initial claim against B and B will lodge a claim against A, C's claim will get forwarded to A's insurer via B. B's record will show claim notified and resolved.
    Time will tell how it revolve's if the OP cares to update us.
    Whichever way it resolves doesn't matter as long as B is not with prejudice when all said and done.
    It's little different to those that believe Aston Villa will get relugated this season, they may do they may not, we won't know until the end of the season.

    You're still giving the wrong advice, car C will claim off the negligent driver who was car A. Car B was a stationary parked car with no driver, it cannot have been negligent and thus liable in the accident the OP had described.

    Perhaps you could answer straight talkers previous post and describe what you would suggest the owner of car C would enter on a court claim against Car B.
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    dacouch wrote: »
    You're still giving the wrong advice, car C will claim off the negligent driver who was car A. Car B was a stationary parked car with no driver, it cannot have been negligent and thus liable in the accident the OP had described.

    Perhaps you could answer straight talkers previous post and describe what you would suggest the owner of car C would enter on a court claim against Car B.

    I'm not giving advice, I simply came onto the thread posting what I believe the process will run, and just to add that is what I believe will happen, where the fuss seems to be , is that you and the other guy seem to want to change what I think and beleive, that simply is not going to happen! When the OP comes back with an update, then you and the other guy can perhaps get an extra lollipop.

    As said I don't mind a debate, but if you want to discuss you are right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong then there is no point entertaining that conversation, why would the incident even get to court? He simply puts what happened which was property insured by B has caused damage to his property.
  • rs65
    rs65 Posts: 5,682 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    DUTR wrote: »
    He simply puts what happened which was property insured by B has caused damage to his property.

    That's where your belief is wrong. B didn't cause the damage.
  • DUTR wrote: »
    I'm not giving advice, I simply came onto the thread posting what I believe the process will run, and just to add that is what I believe will happen, where the fuss seems to be , is that you and the other guy seem to want to change what I think and beleive, that simply is not going to happen! When the OP comes back with an update, then you and the other guy can perhaps get an extra lollipop.

    As said I don't mind a debate, but if you want to discuss you are right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong then there is no point entertaining that conversation, why would the incident even get to court? He simply puts what happened which was property insured by B has caused damage to his property.

    The thing is, I can see your logic but B has done nothing wrong. He would have to plead that due to C's negligence driving, it caused B's vehicle to be shunted into collision with Op's vehicle thereby causing loss and damage which was caused by C's negligent driving. OP's claim against B would fail because there is no negligence on B's part. Why would a judge find against B?
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    The thing is, I can see your logic but B has done nothing wrong. He would have to plead that due to C's negligence driving, it caused B's vehicle to be shunted into collision with Op's vehicle thereby causing loss and damage which was caused by C's negligent driving. OP's claim against B would fail because there is no negligence on B's part. Why would a judge find against B?

    Careful in seeing the logic I'm looking at , other readers may turn against you ;)
    A judge wouldn't really be interested in the case, I agree B has done nothing wrong (perhaps) or C (perhaps) and ultimately A will be responsible.

    PS I understand your post wasn't offering advice and that any reader should always seek their own professional direction on any matters.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

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

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.