Note on windscreen

Altarf

Nasqueron wrote: »

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

No it's the insurer's money! Do you genuinely believe an insurer will pay money out they don't have to.

In the example of whiplash the driver is responsible, so of course the insurer will pay out, so your example is irrelevant.

In this case the passenger is 100% responsible for settling for the damage and it is nothing to do with the policy holder, so why would their insurance company voluntarily hand over money they didn't have to.

Nasqueron

Altarf wrote: »

No it's the insurer's money! Do you genuinely believe an insurer will pay money out they don't have to.

In the example of whiplash the driver is responsible, so of course the insurer will pay out, so your example is irrelevant.

In this case the passenger is 100% responsible for settling for the damage and it is nothing to do with the policy holder, so why would their insurance company voluntarily hand over money they didn't have to.

This is called a strawman, setting up an argument against a point you want to argue against rather than what I said.

Of course an insurer doesn't want to pay out if they don't have to, what I said was that the insurer doesn't need your approval if they choose to payout because they consider themselves liable.

It doesn't matter if the passenger was 100% liable, if the policy says they will pay out for damage by the passenger, then they will payout no matter how much you try and argue that the passenger was liable - the insurer will just point out that they cover passengers and that you don't get to choose what action they take.

In the OP scenario, if their insurance says they cover incidents where a passenger is getting out of a vehicle and caused third party damage (which clearly some do, maybe all, I haven't checked) then they are within their rights to settle regardless of what the policy holder says they should - and you sign a contract with a clause that says they have the right to do that.

If the person whose car was hit by the OP's mother puts in a claim (if OP won't settle privately as offered), the insurance will pay out even if OP tells them not to, there is no clause that says the policy holder can dictate what the insurer does, but rather, the insurer decides and then increases the OP's premium later

Altarf

Nasqueron wrote: »

If the person whose car was hit by the OP's mother puts in a claim (if OP won't settle privately as offered), the insurance will pay out even if OP tells them not to, there is no clause that says the policy holder can dictate what the insurer does, but rather, the insurer decides and then increases the OP's premium later

Perhaps you could describe the process for the person who's car was hit to get the details of the insurance company the passenger was travelling in, so a claim can be submitted.

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

Perhaps you could describe the process for the person who's car was hit to get the details of the insurance company the passenger was travelling in, so a claim can be submitted.

Same way as any other claim.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Same way as any other claim.

And how would you do that as there is no legal obligation on the driver (even if there was one) to provide any details.

shaun_from_Africa

Altarf wrote: »

And how would you do that as there is no legal obligation on the driver (even if there was one) to provide any details.

http://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx
£4 gets you the name of the insurer and the policy number.

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

And how would you do that as there is no legal obligation on the driver (even if there was one) to provide any details.

For the insurance database.

Altarf

And how do you get over the hurdle of the policy holder saying I know nothing about the incident and neither do any of the insured drivers, please reject the claim.

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

And how do you get over the hurdle of the policy holder saying I know nothing about the incident and neither do any of the insured drivers, please reject the claim.

You ask how you get it, when you get the answer you start another arguement.

In the case of the OP they were there and know about the incident.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

You ask how you get it, when you get the answer you start another arguement.

No, just following your train of 'logic'.

Just what is the insurance company going to do when it gets a claim from back completed saying the insured knows nothing and to refuse the claim.