We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
Note on windscreen
Options
Comments
-
What you might find interesting is that many insurers actually cover damage caused by passengers getting out of the car specifically on the policy
I appreciate they do, but that doesn't mean the policy holder has to permit a claim.
The damage was caused by the passenger and the liability is theirs, and theirs alone.
However if the policy holder wants (and it is their choice not the person who had their car damaged) they can allow the insurance policy to cover the claim.0 -
I appreciate they do, but that doesn't mean the policy holder has to permit a claim.
The damage was caused by the passenger and the liability is theirs, and theirs alone.
However if the policy holder wants (and it is their choice not the person who had their car damaged) they can allow the insurance policy to cover the claim.
The policy holder doesn't have to permit the claim. If the insurance decide to pay out they will and don't need the policy holders permission.0 -
Billy_Bullocks wrote: »The policy holder doesn't have to permit the claim. If the insurance decide to pay out they will and don't need the policy holders permission.
Don't be silly.
You seem to have the same lack of understanding of insurance as you do of the Road Traffic Act.
The policyholder needs to be liable for a claim. Where the passenger caused the damage they are the person liable. If the policyholder stepped in and asked the insurance company to cover that loss under the terms of the policy they would do, otherwise it is nothing to do with the insurance company.0 -
Don't be silly.
You seem to have the same lack of understanding of insurance as you do of the Road Traffic Act.
The policyholder needs to be liable for a claim. Where the passenger caused the damage they are the person liable. If the policyholder stepped in and asked the insurance company to cover that loss under the terms of the policy they would do, otherwise it is nothing to do with the insurance company.
So how do you explain this?What you might find interesting is that many insurers actually cover damage caused by passengers getting out of the car specifically on the policy
e.g. from MoreThan
C. Cover for other people
This policy also covers the following people while using your car against their legal responsibility to pay for causing injury to or the death of anyone or damaging another person’s property (we will pay up to £20,000,000, including legal costs, for any claim or claims arising from one incident):
• any passenger travelling in, or getting into or out of, your car
Direct Line
Section A
Liability to other people
2. Cover for other people
We will also provide the cover under section 1a for:
..
anyone who is in or getting into or out of your car;0 -
Don't be silly.
You seem to have the same lack of understanding of insurance as you do of the Road Traffic Act.
The policyholder needs to be liable for a claim. Where the passenger caused the damage they are the person liable. If the policyholder stepped in and asked the insurance company to cover that loss under the terms of the policy they would do, otherwise it is nothing to do with the insurance company.
The wording of the policy documents I quoted does seem to imply that if your passenger caused damage, the insurance company will pay out in the event of a claim. How would you go about refusing to let them pay out? If you were driving and a passenger pulled on the handbrake causing your car to spin and hit other cars, are you seriously suggesting that you could get out of paying for any claims relating to the damage by simply blaming the passenger?Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thank you all for the Friday night fun. I guess I'm not the only one stuck home on this Friday night - I very much enjoyed reading the last three pages of the comments. No input from me whatsoever.
I did want some advice and eventually got it. Thank you to those who hold off the self-righteous drivel.
For the oh-so-perfect ones here:
The forum IS in decline, full of trolls- up yours.
I contacted my insurance company - regardless of the reasoning at the time, I felt this was the only right thing to do.
I contacted them again- once mum explained what happened and assumed full responsibility. No need to slate me or mum, once gain, regardless of the reasoning both did the right thing, so up yours again.
The other driver never bothered to get in touch or raise a claim- her problem, not mine. She ALLEGEDLY took pictures so has my reg number.
What happened between me and my mum, how she felt, what was her reasoning at the time, etc is none of your business. She is my world and whatever she does I will stand by her and defend her till my last breath. This is NOT the subject of my post and NOT what I asked about. I realise posting publicly invites the little keyboard worriers and self righteous twits- have a good weekend. Up yours again and again.
Yes I do question the ALLEGED damage to the other car. I made it clear to insurance I will not authorise any payout until the experts examine both cars and establish it's my paint on her door. The insurance company agreed.
Some of you seem to spend a lot of their time here- try getting out there, there's a whole new REAL world;you might actually enjoy it.
And yet you still havent told us what you're going to do to ensure this doesnt happen again?
You can see how damaging someone elses car / property can be seen as inflammatory, right?0 -
Billy_Bullocks wrote: »So how do you explain this?
By reading it and understanding it in the context of case law.The wording of the policy documents I quoted does seem to imply that if your passenger caused damage, the insurance company will pay out in the event of a claim.
How would you go about refusing to let them pay out? If you were driving and a passenger pulled on the handbrake causing your car to spin and hit other cars, are you seriously suggesting that you could get out of paying for any claims relating to the damage by simply blaming the passenger?
I assume you agree that as the passenger that causes the damage and it is they who are liable for any damages.
The insurance policy doesn't need to cover damage or injury caused by the passenger (that was decided in Brown v Roberts [1965]).
How do you stop the insurance company paying out. The policy holder simply tells them not to, as the liability is the passenger's not the policy holder. You really think the insurance company will argue about not paying out money?
Why does such a clause exist in insurance policies; in most cases you would want the insurance to cover damage or injury by a passenger (are you going to let your nearest and dearest hang out to dry, of course not).
However if the passenger was someone you didn't care about and had done something stupid, you might (and could) to protect your NCB say "tough, your problem, your liability".0 -
By reading it and understanding it in the context of case law.
I assume you agree that as the passenger that causes the damage and it is they who are liable for any damages.
The insurance policy doesn't need to cover damage or injury caused by the passenger (that was decided in Brown v Roberts [1965]).
How do you stop the insurance company paying out. The policy holder simply tells them not to, as the liability is the passenger's not the policy holder. You really think the insurance company will argue about not paying out money?
Why does such a clause exist in insurance policies; in most cases you would want the insurance to cover damage or injury by a passenger (are you going to let your nearest and dearest hang out to dry, of course not).
However if the passenger was someone you didn't care about and had done something stupid, you might (and could) to protect your NCB say "tough, your problem, your liability".
There are plenty of examples where insurance companies have paid out without the policy holder knowing. They do not need the policy holder permission.0 -
By reading it and understanding it in the context of case law.
I assume you agree that as the passenger that causes the damage and it is they who are liable for any damages.
The insurance policy doesn't need to cover damage or injury caused by the passenger (that was decided in Brown v Roberts [1965]).
How do you stop the insurance company paying out. The policy holder simply tells them not to, as the liability is the passenger's not the policy holder. You really think the insurance company will argue about not paying out money?
Why does such a clause exist in insurance policies; in most cases you would want the insurance to cover damage or injury by a passenger (are you going to let your nearest and dearest hang out to dry, of course not).
However if the passenger was someone you didn't care about and had done something stupid, you might (and could) to protect your NCB say "tough, your problem, your liability".
Do you genuinely believe that the insurer won't pay out on a claim because you tell them not to? wow! Of course they will, it's not your money, they choose whether to defend or not. Same deal as those 1-2mph collisions where a whiplash claim comes in, insured says there was no damage, no injury, no claim, insurer gets the claim and pays out as cheaper than fighting. That is precisely why they have these clauses.
Insurer gets a claim from a person regarding damage done by your passenger, they have a witness, of course they're going to pay out if their policy covers damage by your passenger, they're not going to bother fighting a claim which will cost them thousands of pounds in fees
Brown vs Roberts is not necessarily applicable as in that case the owner/driver was NOT insured against the third party liability of the passenger, hence the case. Where your policy DOES cover third party liability of the passenger as per the example insurance polices I mentioned above then they can claim as the passenger is covered under your liability and we come back to the first point, the insurer WILL pay out regardless of your protestations as it is not your choice.
Dig through the insurance market and it seems plenty do, Churchill cover people getting in and out of your car as well and to quote from their policy schedule (and I'll bet yours says something almost identical):
We are entitled to:
take over and carry out the negotiation, defence or settlement of any claim in your
name, or in the name of any other person covered by this policy
;Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
“
Thank you all for the Friday night fun. I guess I'm not the only one stuck home on this Friday night - I very much enjoyed reading the last three pages of the comments. No input from me whatsoever.
I did want some advice and eventually got it. Thank you to those who hold off the self-righteous drivel.
For the oh-so-perfect ones here:
The forum IS in decline, full of trolls- up yours.
I contacted my insurance company - regardless of the reasoning at the time, I felt this was the only right thing to do.
I contacted them again- once mum explained what happened and assumed full responsibility. No need to slate me or mum, once gain, regardless of the reasoning both did the right thing, so up yours again.
The other driver never bothered to get in touch or raise a claim- her problem, not mine. She ALLEGEDLY took pictures so has my reg number.
What happened between me and my mum, how she felt, what was her reasoning at the time, etc is none of your business. She is my world and whatever she does I will stand by her and defend her till my last breath. This is NOT the subject of my post and NOT what I asked about. I realise posting publicly invites the little keyboard worriers and self righteous twits- have a good weekend. Up yours again and again.
Yes I do question the ALLEGED damage to the other car. I made it clear to insurance I will not authorise any payout until the experts examine both cars and establish it's my paint on her door. The insurance company agreed.
Some of you seem to spend a lot of their time here- try getting out there, there's a whole new REAL world;you might actually enjoy it.
Originally posted by 8elarus
”And yet you still havent told us what you're going to do to ensure this doesnt happen again?
You can see how damaging someone elses car / property can be seen as inflammatory, right?
Regards
Paul
How patronising! UP YOURS!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards