I hit a motorbike that was parked on the road but it does not have a valid MOT

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:

Jenni_D said:

Really? I've always thought that the excess applied to any claim against the insured party, not just claims for their own vehicle. Every day is a school day.  

Sandtree said:

There have been two insurers that I'm aware of that have ever tried to put an excess into third party claims but its complicated by the fact you have to be insured from the ground up for third party liability.

I am sort of with Jenni on this, as I always understood that if there is a fault claim against my policy then I suffer the excess.  

In part, it is probably academic about the third party part when I have fully comp cover as any valid claim against me from a third party is also likely to have damaged my own car to an amount at least as much as the excess.

However, when I think back to recall my much younger years, I am sure there was an excess amount even though TPFT cover.  I am sure that excess was not only in the case of the "F" or "T" claim.

If you read your policy book it should make it clear, for example a random Axa book I happen to have open says:

Excess/excesses

The amount you must pay towards any claim even if the incident is not your fault. Excesses apply under Sections A, B, D, and G of this policy.

In this policy book "Liability to Others" is section C and so the excess doesn't apply. For completeness A is own damage, B fire and theft, D Windscreen/Glass and G overseas use

As you say however, for most its a moot point because if they've comp cover (as by far the majority are) as most times they've caused third party damage they will also have own damage and the impact of claiming your own damage on top of the TP is nil.

Have certainly known people find out had they not claimed for their own damage they'd not have had to pay the excess mid claim and get annoyed at it as they'd have lived with the damage but assumed the excess was always payable and so thought they may as well get the damage repaired.

Marvel1

Just go through the insurance.

Grumpy_chap

Sandtree said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Jenni_D said:

Really? I've always thought that the excess applied to any claim against the insured party, not just claims for their own vehicle. Every day is a school day.  

Sandtree said:

There have been two insurers that I'm aware of that have ever tried to put an excess into third party claims but its complicated by the fact you have to be insured from the ground up for third party liability.

I am sort of with Jenni on this, as I always understood that if there is a fault claim against my policy then I suffer the excess.  

In part, it is probably academic about the third party part when I have fully comp cover as any valid claim against me from a third party is also likely to have damaged my own car to an amount at least as much as the excess.

However, when I think back to recall my much younger years, I am sure there was an excess amount even though TPFT cover.  I am sure that excess was not only in the case of the "F" or "T" claim.

If you read your policy book it should make it clear, for example a random Axa book I happen to have open says:

Excess/excesses

The amount you must pay towards any claim even if the incident is not your fault. Excesses apply under Sections A, B, D, and G of this policy.

In this policy book "Liability to Others" is section C and so the excess doesn't apply. For completeness A is own damage, B fire and theft, D Windscreen/Glass and G overseas use

As you say however, for most its a moot point because if they've comp cover (as by far the majority are) as most times they've caused third party damage they will also have own damage and the impact of claiming your own damage on top of the TP is nil.

Have certainly known people find out had they not claimed for their own damage they'd not have had to pay the excess mid claim and get annoyed at it as they'd have lived with the damage but assumed the excess was always payable and so thought they may as well get the damage repaired.

Thank you @Sandtree

Who would have thought it?  (apart from you, obvs) 
Who actually ever reads the policy book?   (ditto)
I don't have a clue where my policy book actually is, or if I ever even received it, so can't look to see what it says.  (I probably was sent the policy book or a link to an online thing.)  

It largely does not matter to me as my car is on SORN ever since lock-down.  No doubt, that is a breach of some random clause somewhere in the policy so I'm not properly covered anyway

ontheroad1970

Ant555 said:

Although you are on the hook to repair the damage either from your pocket or insurance co, I wonder if he is insured.

There is a web site that you can easily check whether your own car is insured (google 'askmid') - it only tells you if its insured today.

Although the https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/ terms and conditions of use relating to GDPR on that site say its for checking your own vehicles, it wouldnt be unheard of for people to accidentally type in the wrong registration number.  I am also sure some people might be tempted to use this service if a strange car is parked outside their house for long periods of time for instance, just to see if its worth reporting.

This may be your only glimmer of hope in negotiating if he is taking the mickey - you might want to tell him that you want to play things by the book as you are a young driver and dont want any future inconsistencies and 'by the book' means you need to swap insurance details.  I think that its an offence for him to withhold his insurance details from you and also note that it 'might' also impact his insurance renewal if there is a claim or outstanding claim so he might not be keen to go official even if he turns out to be insured.

Nope.  Doesn't matter if the third party is uninsured,  He can still claim against the OP's policy.

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:
Who would have thought it?  (apart from you, obvs)  

Who actually ever reads the policy book?   (ditto)
I don't have a clue where my policy book actually is, or if I ever even received it, so can't look to see what it says.  (I probably was sent the policy book or a link to an online thing.)  

It largely does not matter to me as my car is on SORN ever since lock-down.  No doubt, that is a breach of some random clause somewhere in the policy so I'm not properly covered anyway

Unless I am working for a Motor insurer at the time I dont typically read car insurance books (and even when I do it would only be when relevant to my role).

Home insurance books I would recommend reading as its actually a fairly complex product and a lot of variety in quality... many people complain heavily when they find out that their insurer only has to payout on the one damaged dining chairs and not the whole set (worse still with kitchens etc) because they bought a cheap policy without matching set cover.

Unfortunately these days I tend to read more reinsurance treaties, cat bonds and longevity swap documents

Aretnap

Ant555 said:

This may be your only glimmer of hope in negotiating if he is taking the mickey - you might want to tell him that you want to play things by the book as you are a young driver and dont want any future inconsistencies and 'by the book' means you need to swap insurance details.  I think that its an offence for him to withhold his insurance details from you and also note that it 'might' also impact his insurance renewal if there is a claim or outstanding claim so he might not be keen to go official even if he turns out to be insured.

Contrary to popular belief there's no general requirement to swap insurance details after an accident. Unless someone is injured, the only time you have to provide your insurance details is when someone actually makes a claim against you. Unless the OP is going to try to claim against a motorcyclist whose parked bike he drove into (how?) the motorcyclist is under no obligation to provide his insurance details.

Of course the motorcyclist doesn't necessarily know this, so if he is uninsured the threat of being reported might make him drop the claim. but it would be an empty threat; the police won't be interested and his own lack of insurance has no more effect on his right to claim against the OP than his lack of an MOT.

Aretnap

Grumpy_chap said:

Jenni_D said:

Really? I've always thought that the excess applied to any claim against the insured party, not just claims for their own vehicle. Every day is a school day.  

Sandtree said:

There have been two insurers that I'm aware of that have ever tried to put an excess into third party claims but its complicated by the fact you have to be insured from the ground up for third party liability.

I am sort of with Jenni on this, as I always understood that if there is a fault claim against my policy then I suffer the excess.  

In part, it is probably academic about the third party part when I have fully comp cover as any valid claim against me from a third party is also likely to have damaged my own car to an amount at least as much as the excess.

However, when I think back to recall my much younger years, I am sure there was an excess amount even though TPFT cover.  I am sure that excess was not only in the case of the "F" or "T" claim.

It's very rare to impose an excess on third party claims and always has been. Not unknown, but certainly rare.

As Sandtree says, part of the reason is that the Road Traffic Act requires insurers to pay third party claims in full. They can't deduct an excess from what they pay the third party; they'd have to pay the full claim then ask the customer to reimburse the excess. If the customer doesn't pay that gets them into a world of bad debt and collection agencies that probably just isn't worth it for the sake of a £100/£200 excess. Simpler to set the excess for third party claims at zero and adjust the premiums accordingly.

Whereas it's easy to enforce an excess for own damage claims - you just don't repair the car until the customer pays it. Or if it's write off you deduct the excess from the settlement cheque.

One of the few insurers to apply an excess to third party claims is XS Direct, who have an all sections £3000 (yes, thousand) excess. Three grand is probably worth chasing people for. I believe their target market is mainly young drivers in expensive cars who are rich enough to have £3000 squeezed out of them, but who massively underestimate the risk that they'll have accident and end up having to pay it.

Jenni_D

Aretnap said:

As Sandtree says, part of the reason is that the Road Traffic Act requires insurers to pay third party claims in full. They can't deduct an excess from what they pay the third party; they'd have to pay the full claim then ask the customer to reimburse the excess. If the customer doesn't pay that gets them into a world of bad debt and collection agencies that probably just isn't worth it for the sake of a £100/£200 excess. Simpler to set the excess for third party claims at zero and adjust the premiums accordingly.

Thanks guys. The above quote makes a lot of sense and I can see now why there wouldn't likely be an excess on a 3rd party claim.  

Sandtree

Aretnap said:
As Sandtree says, part of the reason is that the Road Traffic Act requires insurers to pay third party claims in full. They can't deduct an excess from what they pay the third party; they'd have to pay the full claim then ask the customer to reimburse the excess. If the customer doesn't pay that gets them into a world of bad debt and collection agencies that probably just isn't worth it for the sake of a £100/£200 excess. Simpler to set the excess for third party claims at zero and adjust the premiums accordingly.

Whereas it's easy to enforce an excess for own damage claims - you just don't repair the car until the customer pays it. Or if it's write off you deduct the excess from the settlement cheque.

One of the few insurers to apply an excess to third party claims is XS Direct, who have an all sections £3000 (yes, thousand) excess. Three grand is probably worth chasing people for. I believe their target market is mainly young drivers in expensive cars who are rich enough to have £3000 squeezed out of them, but who massively underestimate the risk that they'll have accident and end up having to pay it.

When looking at corporate Motor it still tends to be the case that the insurance agreement is written from the ground up but there is a separate agreement for the insured to reimburse up to an aggregate amount and therefore the policy is written as a primary policy but priced as an excess policy (to adopt some slightly more US terms). One global hire car had a £100m aggregate excess.

For construction policies (where similar side agreements exist) etc I can understand why the insured would want their documents to not show a large excess but if a TP excess is fully legal I dont understand why hire car companies etc would need to have it done as a side agreement?