Car insurer claiming against another insurer in my name

AdrianC

GroceryStore said:

They have done you a favour by fixing your car and you are now complaining !

No, they have not done me a favour. I paid them a premium to deliver the service of insurance. They have paid out under an insurance policy under which they were obliged to arrange for my car to be fixed and then recoup the cost from the liable party - which they have either failed to do or been unable to do.

Correct. And, under the terms of that policy, it will be considered "at fault" unless and until the other party reimburse your insurer in full.

The other insurer are currently refusing to do so - they have not admitted liability. They are denying liability. If they had admitted liability, they would have paid.

Your insurer want to take legal action to recover your losses (which they have currently covered) from the other party (via their insurer). This is why the claim needs to be in your name.

molerat

You are lucky you even know about it.  In a similar situation when the 3rd party insurer did not pay up my son didn't even know he had sued the other driver until I told him from my browsing of the court rolls.  I am surprised if they really are suing the other insurer as the party who needs to pay up here is the bus company, those costs being indemnified by their insurer.

MovingForwards

You were the one involved in the accident, not your insurance company.

The insurance company has no legal right to issue proceedings in their name, due to the above.

The insurance company, well their solicitors, will issue court proceedings in your name to recover the money. It's called a subrogated claim.

Usually, when proceedings are issued, the other insurance company pay up.

The claim would not go to court straight away as there is a legal process to follow. At any point during this process, the other insurance company can settle the claim. Think months, not weeks and only when the court are running 'normally' and have cleared the backlog. You may not even go to court.

Court is judges chambers, not the open court you see on TV (that's criminal courts). You, the third party and judge, plus any solicitors / junior barristers sit at the table.
You say your version and confirm the damage to your car, third party does the same, judge asks questions if there was something s/he needs clarifying. S/he things for a few minutes, says their decision.

The newspapers / media etc don't report these kind of cases as they are not 'juicy' or headline news. It's criminal cases you read about, this is a county court matter which are dealt with quietly and in bulk, like a conveyor belt.

If you are adamant you will not attend, tell your insurance company.

If your insurance company do not recover their money, it will be a fault claim. A non-fault claim is where you were not at fault and the money was recovered or the insurance company decided not to recover the money.

(There really needs to be stickies for some of these queries)

sheramber

The bus company  may have changed their stance and are now denying liability.
There are several threads when people have reported this happening.
 

GroceryStore

I didn't say I wouldn't cooperate or help, but clearly if someone is to be inconvenienced by this it should be the bus driver, his company or their insurer. It seems wrong that all the burden and inconvenience falls to me. Plus using my optional add-on of Legal Expenses that cost me extra to pursue the claim in my name seems very cheeky. Presumably they would have claimed in their own name to recover their money if I had not purchased that extra cover from them.

penners324

Relax. The bus company's insurer will pay up when they receive the county court (which is the small claims court) claim.

davidmcn

GroceryStore said:

Plus using my optional add-on of Legal Expenses that cost me extra to pursue the claim in my name seems very cheeky. Presumably they would have claimed in their own name to recover their money if I had not purchased that extra cover from them.

No, the legal expenses cover is to recover your excess (and any other sums which "basic" cover wouldn't include but which the other party is liable to reimburse you for).

TSx

There is a legal principle called 'subrogation' which applies here. Technically, any claim would need to be made in your name as only you have the right to take legal action as you're the wronged party. The insurer doesn't have a direct relationship with the bus company or their insurer. This applies both ways - the insurer takes action against the bus company, not their insurer (but if they have an insurer dealing, they will deal with any legal action).

This is perfectly normal and not detrimental to you in any way. Personally, I would make your feelings known and that it ever came to a situation where you needed to attend court you would not be willing to do this but you will cooperate with anything up to that point. It is 99.9% likely that the insurer will settle before it reaches that stage.

At a minimum if you don't cooperate, your insurer is entitled to ask for the excess from you and record it as a fault claim. Fault in an insurance context means "the money paid out has not been recovered". This is why, for instance, if you were crashed into by an unidentified driver and the insurer couldn't locate them to reclaim any repair costs, it would be recorded as a fault claim. Liability doesn't come into it.

mgfvvc

GroceryStore said:

It seems wrong that all the burden and inconvenience falls to me. Plus using my optional add-on of Legal Expenses that cost me extra to pursue the claim in my name seems very cheeky. Presumably they would have claimed in their own name to recover their money if I had not purchased that extra cover from them.

Claiming you're the only one suffering inconvenient seems very self centred. It's inconvenient for everyone involved.

In an ideal world you wouldn't have to be further involved and the likelihood is that they are just working through the formalities and you won't have to do any more than sign a few bits of paper.

The Legal Expenses cover is irrelevant here. If they have paid out, they need to recover their costs and, as other people have explained, they can't sue in their own name as they weren't involved in the accident. The insurance contract allows them to take legal proceedings in your name because that's how they recover their costs.

This is all routine and I think you're getting it out of proportion because you don't understand the process. Just chill, let the insurers get on with it and it will almost certainly be sorted with very little actual inconvenience.