My dad's received a small claims court claim

Gilesy_W

In February, my father was driving back from town, blacked out and crashed into an oncoming vehicle. Both cars were written off but luckily no one was injured; the air bags didn't even go off.

My dad was initially taken to hospital and continued to have a few funny turns, but after a couple of days was sent home, given a clean bill of health with regards to his heart, they ruled out stroke and Parkinson's but he has subsequently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

The insurance process seemed straightforward, and he was paid a settlement figure for his car, surrended his licence and now relies on family and friends.

Today, he received a claim from the small claims court for £2601.00 for "movement and storage" of the 3rd party's car plus interest of £161.33. Surely, being insured, their claim was entirely against the insurance company? I'm mortified anyone was involved, of course, but this has upset my dad.

Any advice gratefully received!

AdrianC

The claim is against him - it's his car.
The insurer will pay it. But he needs to send it to them, so they can...

Gilesy_W

Oh - that seems incredibly obvious now you say it! How completely logical!

I think I'm a bit stressed and perhaps not thinking straight.

[Deleted User]

Gilesy_W wrote: »

Oh - that seems incredibly obvious now you say it! How completely logical!

I think I'm a bit stressed and perhaps not thinking straight.

Quick and simple question .
Good answer given, no more worries, close the thread quick

Carrot007

Not saying anything is off here. But sometimes things sent direct are because they hope you will just pay up because the costs are over inflated and likely to be not paid in full or refuted by the insurance company.


Personal injury claims especially. My dad got one once when he ran into the back of a car that suddenly stopped. No brake lights of course but after they got smashed where is the proof. His insurance were going to pay out. But after he forwarded the injury claim to them they found out they had prior on doing such things and got nothing. (Yours does sound different though. Maybe just high on the costs?)

Gilesy_W

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised it cost over £2k for the recovery firm to drive 150yds to the scene of the crash and back again. You might be right!

angrycrow

Liability to pay third claims in the event of a collision is based on the driver being negligent. If a driver with no prior medical history and no warning blacks out at the wheel and causes an accident they are not negligent. His insurer may have rejected the claim on the basis of no negligence. The own damage claim would still have been paid.

Gilesy_W

Ah right - that also makes sense so my relief was short-lived. I do remember receiving phone calls from his insurers asking for a bit more information on his medical history and simply told them the truth. Had he ever hidden something from them I guess he wouldn't have been covered anyway.

Seems a bit harsh on them if someone drives into them and they don't get compensated by the insurers as he wasn't negligent....seems a bit harsh on my dad if he has to cough up for something that wasn't his fault. Seems a bit weird that the first he'd know about this is a claim filed in Northampton. Other than that....

Aretnap

Carrot007 wrote: »

Not saying anything is off here. But sometimes things sent direct are because they hope you will just pay up because the costs are over inflated and likely to be not paid in full or refuted by the insurance company.

Tin foil hat anyone?

The claim HAS to be made directly against the driver because he's the one who (allegedly) caused the accident, so liability ultimately lots with him. The other bloke cannot sure three insurance company directly even if he wants to, because nobody is claiming that the insurance company damaged his car. So instead the claim has to be made against the responsible driver, who asks his insurance company to deal with it on his behalf in accordance with the terms of his policy. This procedure has to be followed regardless of the merits of the claim - is not something that gets done because the claim is somehow dodgy.

As above it is possible that the insurer is disputing liability on the grounds that there was no negligence in your dad's part. Where the driver is unexpectedly taken ill at the wheel he may have no liability to other people because there was nothing he could have realistically done to avoid the accident. Which may explan why your dad's insurer hasn't simply paid up and why it's heading for court. If so your dad may be asked to provide evidence of eg his medical history to help his insurer defend the claim. However rest assured that if he is ultimately found to be liable it will still be his insurer that puts their hand in their pocket, not him.

Gilesy_W

Thank you!! Why does everything everyone says make perfect sense?!

Aretnap

Gilesy_W wrote: »

Seems a bit harsh on them if someone drives into them and they don't get compensated by the insurers as he wasn't negligent....seems a bit harsh on my dad if he has to cough up for something that wasn't his fault. Seems a bit weird that the first he'd know about this is a claim filed in Northampton. Other than that....

Your dad won't have to cough up regardless. If he's liable his insurer will cover it. If he's not liable then neither he nor his insurer have to pay and the other driver had to claim on his own insurance or bear guys own costs.

Is that harsh on the other driver? Maybe, but is it any more harsh than having to pay for his own repairs because a tree falls on his car or because a wild animal runs out in front of it? There are accidents where someone is to blame and there are accidents which are pure bad luck. Where someone else is to blame you can usually claim against the at fault person (or his insurer if he has one), but if you want to be protected from the ones that are pure bad luck then it's down to you to insure yourself against them. And a careful driver with no previous health problems having a sudden seizure at the wheel falls into the category of pure bad luck.

Basically to hold someone else liable for an accident you need to answer the question "what would a more careful driver have done differently which would have avoided the accident". In most accidents that's fairly obvious - driven more slowly, paid more attention to the road ahead, waited for a bigger gap before pulling out of a side street etc etc. However in your dad's case that's not obvious at all. So while it wasn't the other guys fault, it wasn't your dad's fault either, so potentially both parties end up claiming on their own policies.