Hit uninsured car

Lomast

[QUOTE=Car 54;73392668

The TP's insurance status is irrelevant, and he's not obliged to provide details at all.[/QUOTE]


I agree its not relevant but as an accident has occurred both parties are legally obliged to exchange details not just the guilty party

facade

The uninsured driver will claim from your insurance for the damage if he wishes, and your insurance should pay out.

Just inform your insurer of the accident, fill out the necessary report on what happened, and mind your own business about whether he is insured or not.

Aretnap

BillTrac wrote: »

I said even if he had other car cover the car been driven still needs valid insurance.

Maybe, maybe not. Some policies stipulate that as a requirement of their driving other cars cover, some don't. So it's possible that the other driver was legally insured.
In any event of your son in law was to blame for the accident then the other drivers insurance status is irrelevant -your SIL or his insurer still has to pick up the bill for the damage. The police may or may not be interested in prosecuting the other driver for driving without insurance, but it won't affect your SIL's liability. So the question for him is really sure he wasn't too settle with a handful of cash and keep his insurance record clean (yes he is supposed to tell his insurance anyway, but most people wouldn't of they were going to settle with cash) or does he want to let his insurer pick up the bill and accept that next year's premium will likely be higher as a result.

Car_54

Lomast wrote: »

I agree its not relevant but as an accident has occurred both parties are legally obliged to exchange details not just the guilty party

The obligation to exchange details at the time of the accident (RTA 1988 section 170) does not include insurance details, unless someone is injured.

There is a separate requirement, which would apply here, to give insurance details to someone making a claim (section 154).

debtdebt

Yes the third party car needs insurance but that is a separate matter.

Regards the accident, your son in law is still liable and he should report it to his insurers. They will settle the third party claim. The third party being uninsured doesn't absolve your son in law of blame.

DUTR

debtdebt wrote: »

Yes the third party car needs insurance but that is a separate matter.

Regards the accident, your son in law is still liable and he should report it to his insurers. They will settle the third party claim. The third party being uninsured doesn't absolve your son in law of blame.

I agree with this and other similar comments above.... however the OP's relative's insurer may have reason to believe their client is not fully liable.
Especially if they suspect a fraudulent claim from a 3rd party.
He should report the incident to authorities and his insurer.

y3andy

If they definately don't have insurance, I would be tempted to "make a deal" with them. Tell them to drop any claim in return for you not making the authorities aware they were driving illegally. That was you both don't lose. :beer:

consumers_revenge

Surely SIL tells the other driver 'Hey Im using the same insurer as you, I suggest we both ring them!'

Car_54

y3andy wrote: »

If they definately don't have insurance, I would be tempted to "make a deal" with them. Tell them to drop any claim in return for you not making the authorities aware they were driving illegally. That was you both don't lose. :beer:

First, we don't know that he wasn't insured.

Second, that sounds suspiciously like blackmail, which is a much more serious crime than driving without insurance.

GothicStirling

I most definitely not be giving him cash, for all you know it's a crash-for-cash scam. If it was genuine, he was driving illegally and shouldn't have been on the road. Probably why he wants cash, as as insurer will refuse to payout as he was breaking the law at the time of the accident.