Advice needed - Insurer asking me to sign a Consent and Assignment Form

Sandtree

Gamekeeper turned poacher.

In certain circumstances an insurer has to act as the RTA insurer of the vehicle even if the driver at the time was not covered by that policy at the time of the accident. What they are saying is they will settle your claim against the driver of the vehicle in exchange for them inheriting your claim against their driver. You normally pass a similar right to your own insurance company via the insurance agreement but obviously in this case you're not insured by CIS hence this form. 

Normally the RTA and/or insurance contract will already cover off such subjugations however insurers like belts and braces and wants to ensure you're aware you're assigning your rights to them.

Manxman_in_exile

I can't comment* on the genearal question whether to sign this or not, but looking at para (b) where it says "... brief details of which are set out in the claim form", I certainly wouldn't be signing it without knowing exactly what is in the claim form.   Have they included what they are claiming?  I presume it's exactly the same as the OP originally claimed off their insurer, but I'd want to be 100% certain.

*  Having said that, like the OP I would be extremely reluctant to sign anything where the implications of signing are completely unclear to me, and which I would reasonably have expected to be resolved years ago.  I'd go back to them and tell them that I don't understand what the purpose of my signing is as my claim was paid out years ago.  I'd say I want a clear and simple explanation in layman's terms as to why it is now necessary, and what the cause of the delay has been.  I'd also tell them to explain what the impact on me would be if I refuse to sign.  (If I was satisfied with their explanations, I might be cheeky and ask what it's worth to them to compensate me for my time in considering and complying with their request...    )

TooManyPoints

CISGIL have paid you already for your damages as required by law - probably as the car was insured by them and they are required to pay out to third parties.

I've only been half following this but I don't think the above is correct. I may be wrong but I believe the OP's bill for damages was settled by his insurers, Swiftcover (aka AXA) under his comprehensive policy. Swiftcover are now trying to recover their outlay from the Third Party's insurers, CISGIL. CISGIL will not indemnify their policyholder for some reason. Hence the form which seems to relinquish the OP's right to claim from CISGIL. Quite why it's taken four years is anybody's guess.

ciderboy2009

TooManyPoints said:

CISGIL have paid you already for your damages as required by law - probably as the car was insured by them and they are required to pay out to third parties.

I've only been half following this but I don't think the above is correct. I may be wrong but I believe the OP's bill for damages was settled by his insurers, Swiftcover (aka AXA) under his comprehensive policy. Swiftcover are now trying to recover their outlay from the Third Party's insurers, CISGIL. CISGIL will not indemnify their policyholder for some reason. Hence the form which seems to relinquish the OP's right to claim from CISGIL. Quite why it's taken four years is anybody's guess.

The very fact that the form has come from CISGIL and not the Swiftcover makes it clear that CISGIL have paid out the the damages.  If they hadn't paid out then they wouldn't be looking to recover their outlay.

This is a standard form - yes it should have been better explained but there is absolutely nothing the OP will lose by signing it.

Knapper

ciderboy2009 said:

The very fact that the form has come from CISGIL and not the Swiftcover makes it clear that CISGIL have paid out the the damages.  If they hadn't paid out then they wouldn't be looking to recover their outlay.

I'm not sure that's right Ciderboy.

Again this is what the AXA chap stated in his recent email :

"As per your below email the attached letter was received from  third party insurer who are the insurer of fault driver.

They are not indemnifying their client, hence they send us assignment & agreement form to be signed by you.
Once we receive signed form from your side will pass it to third party insurer to recover our outlay cost.
Without your signature third party insurer will not reimburse our outlay cost."

So what this says to me is:

1.  Swift/AXA have incurred costs (obviously as they immediately fixed my car)

2.  They will have sought recovery of those costs from CISGIL the insurer of the other driver

3.  However CISGIL (according to the above) say they are not indemnifying the other driver

So here I am a little confused.

If CISGIL are the insurers of the actual car (I'm guessing its a company car) but they are not indemnifying the driver (as presumably he is not listed on the policy) then why are CISGIL involved at all?   It can only be because of some specific motoring law that states that the insurer of the car MUST pay the costs associated with an accident where the driver is at fault even if he/she is uninsured.

This must be some government law put in place to help uninsured driver cases get resolved quickly and fairly for the "not at fault" drivers.  As a result of which we all pay extra in our insurance premiums.

If I am right then I'm not understanding what's really going on here.

IF CISGIL by law, do have to pay out the costs of an uninsured driver then Swift/AXA shouldn't have any issues.  CISGIL should pay Swift and then seek to recover THEIR OWN costs in their own time by pursuing the uninsured driver.    However Swift/AXA's email to me is saying that CISGIL will NOT reimburse Swift/AXA  so that suggests that the law does not force them to pay out.

So I remain confused and can only think that someone here is not being straight with me.   If CISGIL are not liable to pay out anything (as the driver is uninsured) then surely Swift/AXA has to go directly to the driver and take them to court to recover their costs.  If so, why are they saying that CISGIL is sending me this form to sign?

As a final note here, if I sign this form then won't that mean I might get dragged into court to testify and such?

Sandtree

In law you were hit by the TP, ie the driver, and so your claim is against the TP.

As you have comprehensive insurance you were entitled to claim the majority (or in your case all as the excess was waived)  from your own policy. Your insurers however weren't involved in the accident with the TP so are too remote to claim from them ordinarily however your contract of insurance will include terms that mean you subjugate your rights to them... so they sue the TP in your name. 

To give another example, if you tripped on an uneven pavement and damaged your knee and took a week off work but got sick pay. You could sue the council for the damage to your knee but your employers couldn't sue them for the sick pay they had to pay you because they are too remote.

In most cases when you or your insurers sue a third party they have appropriate insurance in place and so just pass it to them to deal with on their behalf and so most cases are dealt with and resolved insurer to insurer. 

The Road Traffic Act however says that if there is a valid certificate of insurance on a vehicle then in certain circumstances the insurer must respond to a claim even if there are indemnity issues. Eg if you let your bother drive your car  whos not on your policy and he crashes it.  As such policy wordings typically have something like this in it:
Direct Line
4. Payments made outside the terms of the policy
If we must make a payment because the laws of any country require us to do so, we may recover from you, or the person who is liable any payment that is not covered by this policy. This includes any amount that we would not otherwise be required to pay as a result of your failure to provide accurate information.

For the policyholder the wording is fairly strong because they are in contract but the wording on the driver is rather weak because your brother has not actually signed up to the contract. Add to this it is often the case that insurers choose to fulfill their RTA obligations without full due process which means its potentially subject to challenge.

So, CIS are doing the right thing by saying they'll act as the RTA insurer but they will want to get their money back if they can. To ensure they can do so they are asking you to assign your right to sue the TP to them, in a similar way as you did to your insurers already (though this was done via your insurance rather than a separate form). 

The rest of the form just deals with matters like if they were able to get interest on top of what they've paid "you" (really your insurers) that it would be passed to you rather than kept by them etc

ciderboy2009

OP - I suggest you read the terms and conditions of your insurance policy.  There will be a bit in there about assisting them to recover their outlay (there always is).  By not signing this form you could potentially be breaching this term.

As insurers of the other car CISGIL are required to pay out third parties by Law but they are then entitled to claim the money back (this is the reason why you should always cancel insurance on a car as soon as possible after you get rid of it). 

As an example of this, a friend was driven into by a stolen car.  He was paid out by the stolen car owners' insurers (who then presumably claimed the money back from the person who stole the car).

It sounds to me like Swift are trying to simplify things for you - hence the minor discrepancy.

Yes, there is a very slight chance that you might be called into court.  However, you could also be called to court by way of a witness summons if you don't sign the form.  The chance of either happening is extremely minimal.

Knapper

Sandtree said:

So, CIS are doing the right thing by saying they'll act as the RTA insurer but they will want to get their money back if they can. To ensure they can do so they are asking you to assign your right to sue the TP to them, in a similar way as you did to your insurers already (though this was done via your insurance rather than a separate form).

The emboldened part here suggests a problem.   If I have already legally subjugated my rights to sue TP to my own insurance company (by virtue of having and signing my insurance policy) then how can I subsequently do it again to another 3rd party company?    Surely Swift/AXA have the rights and authority to pursue the other driver and recover any costs they have incurred?

If CISGIL have agreed to shoulder the costs (being the RTA insurer of the vehicle itself) then the matter is surely between Swift/AXA and CISGIL themselves and it should be Swift/AXA that then pass on the rights to sue that I already gave them.   In which case I ought not to be involved at all here.   This is surely a matter between Swift/AXA and CISGIL.   How they resolve it between themselves is nothing to do with me (saving that they might require my testimony and evidence to aid any proceedings).

The very fact that CISGIL are asking ME to sign this form suggests that in fact the rights to sue the driver must still lie with me and have not actually been subjugated to Swift/AXA by virtue of me having a policy with them.  Which again seems squiffy.

I've emailed Swift/AXA with a list of questions to try and dig deeper.

I'm probably being over-cautious but what I fear is that something is going on that I don't understand and that will have future repercussions and Swift/AXA are essentially trying to wipe their hands of me and basically establish some kind of contract or agreement between me and CISGIL.   In which case that's not on.  CISGIL are nothing to do with me.  My insurance, my contract was with Swift.

Mickey666

There's a lot of supposition going on here (which is understandable) but if I was the OP I'd be wanting to know the possible inplications TO ME if I didn't sign the form.

Manxman, above, seems to be the only poster who has addressed this angle as most of the other posts are hypothesising about why the insurance compay wants the OP to sign. 

Isn't it a universal rule NEVER to sign anything you don't understand?  The OP was involved in an accident FOUR years ago, not their fault, and their claim has been fully paid.  It seems perfectly fair to expect that was the end of the matter.  If another insurance comany wishes to pursue the culprit then fine, but why should they need anything from the OP to do so?  I don't know the answer and, like Manxman, until I properly understood what was going on I would not be signing anything.

ciderboy2009

Mickey666 said:

Isn't it a universal rule NEVER to sign anything you don't understand?

Yes - but if you don't understand a legal document then the usual way to deal with it is to ask a legal expert (with the associated costs) - not ignore it for four years and then ask a load of strangers (who may or may not know what they're talking about) and argue every point they come up with.

The implications of signing the form are zero - it's just a standard statement assigning their rights for this one particular matter.

The implications of not signing the form range from zero to the  possibility (albeit unlikely) of having to pay back the money paid out by their insurance company (plus interest and costs) as they have not complied with the terms they signed up to when initially taking out the insurance policy.