Car stolen - Am I liable?

Snowy5

Still scouring the oolicy. Have found:

"We will not pay: loss or damage where your car is driven or used without your permission by a member of your family or household unless you report them to the police for taking your car without your consent"

Can not see anything obvious about me being liable for personal injury

dacouch

Snowy5 wrote: »

Still scouring the oolicy. Have found:

"We will not pay: loss or damage where your car is driven or used without your permission by a member of your family or household unless you report them to the police for taking your car without your consent"

Can not see anything obvious about me being liable for personal injury

Which Insurer are you with?

Naming them should have no impact on your claim, I'm guessing it's Hastings

If your Insurers is declining your claim / passing the costs over to you they should provide a letter detailing the exact reasons and reference the relevant part of the policy wording. Have they done this and if so what is the exact wording they provided?

You may find posting on LegalBeagles forum may get you some in depth legal advice

Aretnap

Arklight wrote: »

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?

Section 150 of the Road Traffic Act makes the insurer liable for the harm caused by the driver, whether or not the driver is actually covered by the policy - so yes the insurer does have to "cover" the thief. It's one of a number of measures in place to ensure that innocent victims of uninsured drivers aren't left with no means of redress. The (rough) principle is that the insurer with the closest connection to the car pays the third party claims; if the car has no insurance at all then the MIB pays.

The Road Traffic Act goes on to allow the insurer to recover the cost of the claim from either the uninsured person who was driving the car, or anyone who caused or permitted that person to drive the car. So you should not end up liable if a thief took your car and hit a pedestrian, however you might well end up liable if you lent your car to someone who wasn't insured and they hit a pedestrian.

In principle it would be possible for a term in the policy to extend the owner's liability to include unauthorised taking... but it would be a significant and unusual exclusion so it would have to be very clearly highlighted to the customer at the time of purchase, not something that was buried on page 94 of the small print.

AdrianC

brianposter wrote: »

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

Only one way to find out.

But remember those contracts are written by experienced lawyers.