Accident without insurance

George_Michael

As you've not mentioned otherwise, it sounds like your friend has been lucky in that he hasn't been charged with permitting you to drive an uninsured vehicle.
As he has a traders policy, an insurance related conviction might have more impact on him than it will on you.

unholyangel

Aretnap wrote: »

What makes you think that the OP's friend can't hold him responsible for the damage? The law around bailments (ie taking possession of someone else's property without taking ownership of it) is somewhat complex, however my understanding is that the starting point is that the bailee is generally strictly liable for any damage which occurs while the property is in his possession. Negligence didn't come into it. So unless they agreed otherwise the OP needs to make good the damage to the car, and can in turn claim from the other driver (or his insurer).

Alternatively the cars owner could claim directly from the other driver of he prefers... however if the OP already has a solicitor dealing with the personal injury aspect I'd suggest that the first thing to try is asking if the solicitor can also deal with the claim for damage to the car.

It would be unreasonable to hold someone liable for something entirely outside of their control. The standard you're held to is either negligence or gross negligence depending on the type of bailment.

soolin

Car_54 wrote: »

It shouldn't be necessary to read the multi-page policy documents: who is covered and for what is clearly set out on the certificate, a single A4 page.


It seems that many people pay hundreds or thousands of pounds for insurance, without even taking a few minutes to understand what they've actually bought.

That was me trying to be nice as per the rules.:) I was tempted to say that I had never ever heard of anyone believing that 'permission to drive' was all that was needed to be insured.

It is worrying that there seems to be so much confusion about insurance with people prepared to take all sorts of risks without, as you say, taking just a few moments to understand what their insurance covers.

Mercdriver

Car_54 wrote: »

Even if your policy had DOC cover, it would have been third-party only, so the damage to your friend’s car would not have been covered.

Car_54 wrote: »

No. Not unless he has an "any driver" policy, which is extremely unlikely, unless your pal is a millionaire.

Do I really have to correct you every time you make this erroneous assumption?

I have my insurance with Chubb. Used to be Hiscox but they have withdrawn from the UK vehicle insurance market. Two things my insurance covers me for on an agreed valuation policy:

1/ I can drive any vehicle provided it is not ordinarily kept at my property. The cover is fully comprehensive.

2/ Anyone is insured to drive my vehicle fully comprehensive provided they have my consent - though I also have named drivers.

Now, while my insurance may not be cheap, there are other factors at play that influence this that I will not go into. I pay it annually by bank transfer via a broker and it is not into 4 figures by some margin.

It is insured on business use also.

MEM62

slinga wrote: »

Isn't it the case that if you get permission to drive a friend's car then you are covered by his insurance, Third Party at least??

Errrrr..... NO. And it never has been.

Car_54

Mercdriver wrote: »

Do I really have to correct you every time you make this erroneous assumption?

I have my insurance with Chubb. Used to be Hiscox but they have withdrawn from the UK vehicle insurance market. Two things my insurance covers me for on an agreed valuation policy:

1/ I can drive any vehicle provided it is not ordinarily kept at my property. The cover is fully comprehensive.

2/ Anyone is insured to drive my vehicle fully comprehensive provided they have my consent - though I also have named drivers.

Now, while my insurance may not be cheap, there are other factors at play that influence this that I will not go into. I pay it annually by bank transfer via a broker and it is not into 4 figures by some margin.

It is insured on business use also.

Fair enough, but I'd guess 99% of drivers do not have agreed valuation Policies.

System

debtdebt wrote: »

Your friend needs to pursue the driver or insurers of the third party vehicle to seek recovery of the repair costs.

Apart from being uninsured, you weren't the negligent party.

The damage to the vehicle you were driving is your friend's loss as it was his car. Your friend can't hold you responsible as you weren't at fault for the accident. He has to go after the third party driver.

Two problems here


firstly Driving uninsured is against the Law and the vehicle owner could be made liable for allowing it and if the owners insurance did cover the cost of the repair they would then pursue the driver for reimbursement so the OP is probably better off paying the cost of repairs as probably cheaper in the long run

TheTalkingDead

People are intermingling things.

Simonr66 wrote: »

Two problems here


firstly Driving uninsured is against the Law and the vehicle owner could be made liable for allowing it and if the owners insurance did cover the cost of the repair they would then pursue the driver for reimbursement so the OP is probably better off paying the cost of repairs as probably cheaper in the long run

nonsense and irrelevant How do you sue someone not at fault for a collision an innocent party? The no insurance and permitting is a separate issue aside from the insurers.


1.OP not at fault, OP cannot be pursued for the costs from the insured party when their client is the one at fault.


2.Thirdparty insurers should act In the same way as if the OP was insured (if the driver himself was covered for this car it will still need sorting as the at fault insurer third party cover), the fact he wasn't covered to drive the vehicle is irrelevant, the insurers must put the vehicle owner back in same pre collision accident.


3. OP's friend cannot pursue him for costs associated with a non fault accident, in fact it could back fire and end up costing the OP's friend as he permitted use, without due diligence. It would be for the friend to pursue the insurers and or driver of the at fault incident.

slinga

MEM62 wrote: »

Errrrr..... NO. And it never has been.

Worrabout the post immediately above yours?

Mercdriver

slinga wrote: »

Worrabout the post immediately above yours?

I think that MEM62's point wasn't that the ability to drive other cars was never available, but that it was never automatic. You have to check your documents to check it is applicable to you.

The regulator really ought to mandate that changes to these conditions should be directly communicated with customers on renewal, especially since many allow their insurance to auto renew. Many are caught out and end up with an insurance conviction 6 points and a struggle to rent a car, as the mainstream rental companies will not rent a car to someone with an insurance endorsement on their licence.