Insurance Claim for stolen vehicle

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

8871Jlw said:

sheramber said:

If the police caused damage to the car by ramming it then your insurance company may want to claim from them- hence wanting the police report.

Not quite as there would be no claim for damage - it’s a claim for theft of the vehicle and the insurer can’t provide an indemnity to the thief regarding the collision/damage  

A stolen but recovered vehicle is merely now scrap/salvage value and the insurer sends it to their salvage agent for an agreed fee (once the claim is validated and the policy holder paid his pre-theft valuation).  

I imagine the salvage will get returned to the OP at some point given it’s been found but the claim not accepted 

But the police have insurance. 

Road Traffic Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)

Police are exempt from having to have insurance... same as any owners of large fleets of vehicles there is no point paying for ground up insurance because its not a question of if you will have a claim this year or not but how many will there be. Whilst companies arent exempt from the insurance requirement there are mechanisms that can be put in place that effectively makes it an excess of loss style policy with an aggregate attachment point... eg the insurance kicks in after the losses exceeds £100m in a year.

Whilst the police are exempt from having insurance I suspect that some will have policies that deal with either the largest losses and/or aggregate losses but the small stuff like this is just self insured. 

You're being pedantic now, as you well know no one actually needs insurance. A surety against third party risks is enough but most can't afford that.

Whether the police have insurance or a surety there is money there to pay a third party. Whether they are liable is another matter. If a vehicle is damaged in the tactical phase of a pursuit who is liable? I don't know whether it's the police for trying to box or a suspect for not complying.

If the Police decide to use tactical contact then there's no doubt that they have caused the damage. 

The police do not need a surety either, they are fully exempt from the RTA's requirement for insurance as per the link. Yes it is pedantic and yes there will be monies to pay third parties and there may even be insurance, just because your exempt doesnt mean you cannot choose to have it anyway 

I've never come across any case where an insurer has attempted recovery from the police for damage caused from tactical contact. Have had plenty of cases where an innocent bystander has claimed from the police after being hit (though not in some form of chain reaction from tactical contact). 

As previously mentioned, there are PR considerations in some of these things and an insurer trying to reduce their losses by claiming from the public purse for police trying to stop criminals or firefighters trying to put out fires etc isnt the kind of story you want splashed across the red tops.

DB1904

8871Jlw said:

DB1904 said:

8871Jlw said:

DB1904 said:

8871Jlw said:

sheramber said:

If the police caused damage to the car by ramming it then your insurance company may want to claim from them- hence wanting the police report.

Not quite as there would be no claim for damage - it’s a claim for theft of the vehicle and the insurer can’t provide an indemnity to the thief regarding the collision/damage  

A stolen but recovered vehicle is merely now scrap/salvage value and the insurer sends it to their salvage agent for an agreed fee (once the claim is validated and the policy holder paid his pre-theft valuation).  

I imagine the salvage will get returned to the OP at some point given it’s been found but the claim not accepted 

But the police have insurance. 

Yes Okay,  but who would pursue the police’s insurance? There is no indemnity in place for the thief to drive the vehicle, so there would never be a damage claim made in order to pursue the police for. 

The only recourse of recovery the insurance company has is against the thief if they have been identified, which we don’t even bother with because it’s generally a non-starter! 

If you go out for a drive today and run into the back of an uninsured vehicle. You are still liable and can claim from your insurance who will pay. 

You’re describing scenarios that aren’t related to the OPs issue.  Any collision following a theft taking place is not relevant to the claim the OP is making.  

The OP's vehicle was damaged in a police pursuit was it not?

DB1904

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

8871Jlw said:

sheramber said:

If the police caused damage to the car by ramming it then your insurance company may want to claim from them- hence wanting the police report.

Not quite as there would be no claim for damage - it’s a claim for theft of the vehicle and the insurer can’t provide an indemnity to the thief regarding the collision/damage  

A stolen but recovered vehicle is merely now scrap/salvage value and the insurer sends it to their salvage agent for an agreed fee (once the claim is validated and the policy holder paid his pre-theft valuation).  

I imagine the salvage will get returned to the OP at some point given it’s been found but the claim not accepted 

But the police have insurance. 

Road Traffic Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)

Police are exempt from having to have insurance... same as any owners of large fleets of vehicles there is no point paying for ground up insurance because its not a question of if you will have a claim this year or not but how many will there be. Whilst companies arent exempt from the insurance requirement there are mechanisms that can be put in place that effectively makes it an excess of loss style policy with an aggregate attachment point... eg the insurance kicks in after the losses exceeds £100m in a year.

Whilst the police are exempt from having insurance I suspect that some will have policies that deal with either the largest losses and/or aggregate losses but the small stuff like this is just self insured. 

You're being pedantic now, as you well know no one actually needs insurance. A surety against third party risks is enough but most can't afford that.

Whether the police have insurance or a surety there is money there to pay a third party. Whether they are liable is another matter. If a vehicle is damaged in the tactical phase of a pursuit who is liable? I don't know whether it's the police for trying to box or a suspect for not complying.

If the Police decide to use tactical contact then there's no doubt that they have caused the damage. 

The police do not need a surety either, they are fully exempt from the RTA's requirement for insurance as per the link. Yes it is pedantic and yes there will be monies to pay third parties and there may even be insurance, just because your exempt doesnt mean you cannot choose to have it anyway 

I've never come across any case where an insurer has attempted recovery from the police for damage caused from tactical contact. Have had plenty of cases where an innocent bystander has claimed from the police after being hit (though not in some form of chain reaction from tactical contact). 

As previously mentioned, there are PR considerations in some of these things and an insurer trying to reduce their losses by claiming from the public purse for police trying to stop criminals or firefighters trying to put out fires etc isnt the kind of story you want splashed across the red tops.

I bet you can't give a single example of any police force not have a third party liability cover in relation to their vehicles. Taking out the PR side, you claim to work in the insurance industry so tell us why if the OP chose to pursue the police with a third party claim it would fail.

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

8871Jlw said:

sheramber said:

If the police caused damage to the car by ramming it then your insurance company may want to claim from them- hence wanting the police report.

Not quite as there would be no claim for damage - it’s a claim for theft of the vehicle and the insurer can’t provide an indemnity to the thief regarding the collision/damage  

A stolen but recovered vehicle is merely now scrap/salvage value and the insurer sends it to their salvage agent for an agreed fee (once the claim is validated and the policy holder paid his pre-theft valuation).  

I imagine the salvage will get returned to the OP at some point given it’s been found but the claim not accepted 

But the police have insurance. 

Road Traffic Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)

Police are exempt from having to have insurance... same as any owners of large fleets of vehicles there is no point paying for ground up insurance because its not a question of if you will have a claim this year or not but how many will there be. Whilst companies arent exempt from the insurance requirement there are mechanisms that can be put in place that effectively makes it an excess of loss style policy with an aggregate attachment point... eg the insurance kicks in after the losses exceeds £100m in a year.

Whilst the police are exempt from having insurance I suspect that some will have policies that deal with either the largest losses and/or aggregate losses but the small stuff like this is just self insured. 

You're being pedantic now, as you well know no one actually needs insurance. A surety against third party risks is enough but most can't afford that.

Whether the police have insurance or a surety there is money there to pay a third party. Whether they are liable is another matter. If a vehicle is damaged in the tactical phase of a pursuit who is liable? I don't know whether it's the police for trying to box or a suspect for not complying.

If the Police decide to use tactical contact then there's no doubt that they have caused the damage. 

The police do not need a surety either, they are fully exempt from the RTA's requirement for insurance as per the link. Yes it is pedantic and yes there will be monies to pay third parties and there may even be insurance, just because your exempt doesnt mean you cannot choose to have it anyway 

I've never come across any case where an insurer has attempted recovery from the police for damage caused from tactical contact. Have had plenty of cases where an innocent bystander has claimed from the police after being hit (though not in some form of chain reaction from tactical contact). 

As previously mentioned, there are PR considerations in some of these things and an insurer trying to reduce their losses by claiming from the public purse for police trying to stop criminals or firefighters trying to put out fires etc isnt the kind of story you want splashed across the red tops.

I bet you can't give a single example of any police force not have a third party liability cover in relation to their vehicles. Taking out the PR side, you claim to work in the insurance industry so tell us why if the OP chose to pursue the police with a third party claim it would fail.

I similarly could only give a single example of a police force with third party liability cover and it wasnt ground up... I dont recall what the attachment point was or if there was an aggregate limit but all the claims I saw on the account were being settled from the fund provided by the police themselves and not going to the insurer (for which the company didnt have delegated authority). 

I've never had a need to canvas all the UK police forces on their insurance arrangements nor have I worked in fleet insurance sales to have a vested interest in knowing if its somewhere I could be selling my wares. Certainly the TPA I worked for only had one police force on their accounts.

It is very similar to Damage to property by police forcing entry (parliament.uk) the police make an active decision to damage your front door they generally are not liable for the damage caused if they had just cause and their action was reasonable/proportionate even if following the damage they find no evidence of a crime etc.

Looking at LexisNexis it talks of statutory protections for the police against liability whilst performing their role to investigate or prevent crime however doesnt cite the source and clearly they are not universal as per Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police where the police knocked over a bystander whilst making an arrest and the Supreme Court did rule that by deciding to make the arrest the police owed a duty of care to those around the suspect (maybe also worth noting that the police were represented by a barrister provided by the Police Legal Services and not any insurers)