Car stolen - Am I liable?

Ian_W

Don't think anyone has mentioned this before and you don't say who your insurers are but Admiral, as an example, have the following under the Heading "General Exceptions to your cover" :
"You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have for any of the following:
1. Any accident, injury, loss, theft or damage which happens while your car is:
* taken or driven without your consent by someone who normally lives with you as part of your household or who is your partner"
There are obviously other matters listed but if your son lived with you at the time this may well be a legitimate get out clause for the insurer. They obviously have to settle with the third party but by the look of it can reclaim their pay out from you.
Check your policy wording carefully, if it has such a clause it doesn't look good to me but, as others have said, legal advice may needed.

brianposter

Ian_W wrote: »

Don't think anyone has mentioned this before and you don't say who your insurers are but Admiral, as an example, have the following under the Heading "General Exceptions to your cover" :
"You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have for any of the following:
1. Any accident, injury, loss, theft or damage which happens while your car is:
* taken or driven without your consent by someone who normally lives with you as part of your household or who is your partner"
There are obviously other matters listed but if your son lived with you at the time this may well be a legitimate get out clause for the insurer. They obviously have to settle with the third party but by the look of it can reclaim their pay out from you.
Check your policy wording carefully, if it has such a clause it doesn't look good to me but, as others have said, legal advice may needed.

I doubt that such a clause would be acceptable to a court. The insurer is entitled to warn people about the risks occasioned by family members, but including a clause which may have nonsensical results seems a bit excessive.

Dr_Crypto

They’re still trying it on. It’s perfectly possible to be the victim
Of crime by a member of your household and even the CICA has abolished the same roof rule. I very much doubt the FOS or a court would uphold such a “rule”.
No. These cowboy insurers are trying to pursue the OP as she has some money rather than some old lag from whom they’ll get nothing.

brianposter

The OP should remember thar, whilst this is a serious matter, insurers themselves are not noted for honesty.

Arklight

I'm unclear as to why the OP's insurer paid out on a 3rd party claim while the car was stolen. Effectively covering the thief.

If a thief steals my car and ploughs into a pedestrian do I then get the bill? Is there some criteria now as to whether there are authorised car thieves and ones you aren't covered for?

Irrespective as to whether they would pay out to replace the car if a family member steals it, it seems enormously unfair that the OP has wound up with a bill that should have stopped and started with the person who stole it.

It seems so outlandish that I wonder if the insurers have messed up somewhere with paying out and are trying to cover their error. The car was being driven without insurance, stolen, by someone without insurance. Why have they paid out for that?

Dr_Crypto

Where there is a policy of insurance in force for a vehicle then that insurer pays for any third party claims. If no policy exists at all then the MIB pays. The insurer than can attempt to recover costs from offender (if one is identified) or any other person. In this case the insurer could pursue the son but there is generally no point in trying to get money from an old lag so they are going after the OP. This is quite wrong.

Snowy5

Thank you those who posted constructive comments.

I shall contact the insurers (a VERY big Company) on Monday and ask them to email me the part of the policy that details that I am liable.

Dr_Crypto

Good idea but under no circumstances accept any liability. Sign nothing without taking proper legal advice.

shaun_from_Africa

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

Good idea but under no circumstances accept any liability. Sign nothing without taking proper legal advice.

Not only "sign nothing" but also be very careful about what you say when you phone them as the call will be recorded and it's sometimes possible to say the wrong thing when stressed or pressured for an answer and you may say something that could be interpreted the wrong way.

Ian_W

brianposter wrote:

I doubt that such a clause would be acceptable to a court.

Are you a lawyer or a judge? No I'm not either, merely pointing out to the OP that she needs to check the terms of her policy, something no-one else has - though they've doubted someone's arm could be broken by a wing mirror when they were clearly an innocent victim of her errant son!
I don't THINK the clause holds water because the exemption says "You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have" but as she wasn't negligent towards the 3rd party who was injured I don't see how she has any "liabilities" in that respect. The insurers do - as has been pointed out, they must meet 3rd party claims even if the vehicle is stolen, the MIB only meet claims where the vehicle is uninsured or untraced.
OP, you don't need to phone the insurers, download your policy docs and check them for any clause like that and if there is one then seek legal advice.