Uninsured losses

jan1012

My insurance has been voided due to not having committing to work and back a car hit me and admitted liability but my insurance provider will not help me can I try and claim of the other guys policy as he was at fault

caprikid1

Just to be clear, you were hit from behind but because your  insurance policy  did not have commuting your  insurance have refused to pay out ?

In this circumstance just contact the other parties insurance directly and deal with them, as long as they are not Direct Line they should deal with your prompt quickly. If they don't respond maybe a claims handling company may take it on but be careful what you sign.

Ebe_Scrooge

I'm not sure I fully understand your post - if your insurance was voided then you were uninsured, so your car should not have been on the road.

If the car was "off the road" (e.g. on a private driveway) and the other party hit it, then yes you can claim directly from their insurance.

Sandtree

Ebe_Scrooge said:

I'm not sure I fully understand your post - if your insurance was voided then you were uninsured, so your car should not have been on the road.

If the car was "off the road" (e.g. on a private driveway) and the other party hit it, then yes you can claim directly from their insurance.

The legality of the car being on the road makes no difference to liability of the accident.

So yes, if the other party is liable for the accident you can still claim off their insurance even though your own insurance has been voided. Just be aware that as you are not a customer you have no right of complaint if you dont like their offer etc and the courts rather than the Financial Ombudsman is the route of dispute.

Most insurers, including Direct Line, will often be keen on dealing with you directly as long as their insured has reported the accident and liability or indemnity isnt under question. The much lower second choice is to go via an accident management company. 

caprikid1

"Most insurers, including Direct Line, will often be keen on dealing with you directly"

Most certainly they will want to deal direct where possible , as they can lie , bully and deny liability wherever possible even in clear cut cases.

DB1904

jan1012 said:

My insurance has been voided due to not having committing to work and back a car hit me and admitted liability but my insurance provider will not help me can I try and claim of the other guys policy as he was at fault

Next time you commit to insurance be sure to include commuting on your policy and also declare the cancelled policy. It won't be cheap. 

caprikid1

"also declare the cancelled policy. It won't be cheap. "

Cannot see where they state the policy is cancelled ?

Sandtree

caprikid1 said:

"Most insurers, including Direct Line, will often be keen on dealing with you directly"

Most certainly they will want to deal direct where possible , as they can lie , bully and deny liability wherever possible even in clear cut cases.

You have to remember they represent their policyholder's interests not yours and so absolutely they will deny liability wherever possible if their PH is giving them information that leads them to believe they arent at fault.

Ironically DL is one of the insurers that championed direct third party capture, but only where they feel their PH is at fault.

Aretnap

Ebe_Scrooge said:

I'm not sure I fully understand your post - if your insurance was voided then you were uninsured, so your car should not have been on the road.

If the car was "off the road" (e.g. on a private driveway) and the other party hit it, then yes you can claim directly from their insurance.

Hmmm. It is indeed illegal to drive without valid insurance. It is also illegal to drive with a broken numberplate bulb. If the OP had a broken numberplate bulb, would you say "your car should not have been on the road" and therefore conclude that he would not be able to claim from the other driver's insurance? If not, what do you think is different about him not having valid insurance?

In reality the fact that the OP was doing something illegal makes no difference to liability for the accident, unless the illegality itself contributed to the accident. As neither the lack of an insurance certificate nor a broken numberplate bulb can realistically cause an accident, the OP's right to make a claim against the other driver would not be affected in either case.

Anyone who does think it's grotesquely unfair that they could drive into an uninsured car and still be held liable for the damage can always avoid the problem by not driving into other people's cars in the first place. Well, it works for me.

jimjames

caprikid1 said:

"also declare the cancelled policy. It won't be cheap. "

Cannot see where they state the policy is cancelled ?

jan1012 said:

My insurance has been voided due to not having committing to work

 It says insurance voided in OP or are you suggesting cancelled and voided are 2 different things? 

Sandtree

jimjames said:

caprikid1 said:

"also declare the cancelled policy. It won't be cheap. "

Cannot see where they state the policy is cancelled ?

jan1012 said:

My insurance has been voided due to not having committing to work

 It says insurance voided in OP or are you suggesting cancelled and voided are 2 different things? 

Its mainly semantics but generally "voided" means its been cancelled back to inception as if it never existed whereas "cancelled" can be back to inception (as noted above) or can be from some other point forward in which case it did "exist" before the effective date of the cancellation.