Car Insurance Claim but no collision

KizzyWine

Hi forum buddies


I'm hoping you can help me with an issue I'm having with my car insurers. On 22nd July as I was driving along, another driver coming the opposite way threw an egg at my car, causing some small damage to the paintwork and knocking off a piece of trim from the bonnet, cost to repair is roughly £575. Luckily I have a dashcam and caught it all on film. I reported the incident to the police who have now spoken to the driver who has accepted responsibility, saying it was a random act and they have received a criminal damage caution. I now told by my insurers that this is classed as vandalism as there was no actual collision and that I will need to pay the excess and that the claim will be treated as a fault claim. My insurance is due for renew at the end of October and I don't want this t affect it. Having discussed it again with the police officer, this IS classed as an RTA as their actions caused damage to my vehicle which would not have happened if they'd not been on the road. I'm trying to argue the case with the insurers but getting nowhere
Can anyone help?

glentoran99

KizzyWine wrote: »

Hi forum buddies


I'm hoping you can help me with an issue I'm having with my car insurers. On 22nd July as I was driving along, another driver coming the opposite way threw an egg at my car, causing some small damage to the paintwork and knocking off a piece of trim from the bonnet, cost to repair is roughly £575. Luckily I have a dashcam and caught it all on film. I reported the incident to the police who have now spoken to the driver who has accepted responsibility, saying it was a random act and they have received a criminal damage caution. I now told by my insurers that this is classed as vandalism as there was no actual collision and that I will need to pay the excess and that the claim will be treated as a fault claim. My insurance is due for renew at the end of October and I don't want this t affect it. Having discussed it again with the police officer, this IS classed as an RTA as their actions caused damage to my vehicle which would not have happened if they'd not been on the road. I'm trying to argue the case with the insurers but getting nowhere
Can anyone help?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, However you could try and claim from the other drivers insurer rather than your own

KizzyWine

how do I claim direct from his insurers?


My insurance co have just called me back and are still insisting that it's an act of vandalism and that this his insurers only insure his car not his actions

Quentin

As your insurer is insisting this claim is a fault claim then your only avenue with them is to see if the FOS agree. To do so you need to raise an official complaint then when you get their reply (or they ignore the complaint for 8 weeks) you can escalate to the FOS for their adjudication at no cost to you.


To claim directly off the third party insurer you first need to establish who they are (use askmid), and then send contact them and see if they have an innocent third party claim department to handle the claim and take it from their reply. (If the driver has funds, then you could consider pursuing him directly to reimburse you - using MCOL as a last resort)


However you do this, your insurance will be affected!


You must disclose this incident to any new insurer you approach for quotes. Insurers normally ask about your history over the last 5 years


(The policeman's opinion is irrelevant - this is a civil insurance issue, between you and your insurer, and policemen do not deal with civil issues)

KizzyWine

I've asked to escalate this as a complaint and will see where that gets me. Thanks

Aretnap

The other driver's insurers may not be liable to pay, on the grounds that it was an act of knobbishness by someone who just happened to be driving a motor vehicle, rather than damage arising directly out of his use of that motor vehicle. The Road Traffic Act only required the third party section of an insurance policy to cover liabilities "caused by, or arising out of, the use of a vehicle on a road".

There is precedent, of a sort, in the case on John Worboys, a taxi driver who drugged and raped his passengers. Some of the victims attempted to claim compensation from his motor insurer. The High Court found that while his crimes would certainly not have happened had he not been driving his taxi, they were too remote from his actual use of the taxi to fall within the wording of the Road Traffic Act, so his insurers were not liable. The other drivers' insurers might use a similar argument to deny liability, and it's not at all obvious that they'd be wrong. It's a complex area of the law, and the opinion of an individual policeman is really neither here nor there.

If the other drivers' insurers aren't liable, and you make a claim on your policy, then your insurers basically have nobody to claim the money back from, so it will go down as a fault claim and impact your NCB. (OK, in theory your insurers could go after the driver himself, but in practice they're very unlikely to want the costs of a court case against a random chav who in all likelihood won't pay any sum they're awarded)