Hit and Run, Insurer refused claim 9 December 2022 at 6:21PM in Insurance & life assurance 11 replies 366 views

sobi1

Hello,

Wondering if anyone could help

Recently my friend was involved in a hit and run accident.

A car coming from a side road failed to give way, and then tried to turn right (there was clear signage to say, no right turn allowed).  My friend couldn't avoid the accident and hit the other person's car. The person left the car at the scene and run away. However, he was insured.

His insurer provider agreed it was non-fault claim and his car was also written off. Later, they said they will not be paying him anything as his MOT had expired and quoted a line from their policy wording.

He didn’t realise this (which is his fault) but MOT had expired a few days ago before the accident.

Police and ambulance arrived at the scene as airbag was deployed and he had his pregnant wife and 1 year old daughter in the car. They were completely shaken by the accident. His wife had to attended A&E and then follow-up appointments because of the accident.

The insurer provider has 1.5 star rating on google, mainly because of refusing claims.

Is there anything he can do regarding the claim? His insurer does not have to pay him as it is 'non-fault' accident, and its other party’s insurer who has to pay.

 Thanks

DullGreyGuy

No, they have to pay him and they then attempt to recover the outlay from the other party. In most cases this is successful, though your insurers remain out of pocket for their operating expenses that they cannot reclaim, but there are a minority of cases where outlay cannot be recovered. One example would be when it turns out the TP vehicle was stolen and the thief is unidentified - the fact the person ran on this case may raise alarm bells.

They have two options... fight their insurers, initially by registering a complaint or contact the third party insurer and claim directly from them. 

The Financial Ombudsman generally wont accept insurers declining a claim just because of the lack of an MOT even if that's what their policywording says however there are cases (eg https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN1899923.pdf) where the insured also says they have an MOT and the lack of MOT only comes to light after where the ombudsman accept that cancelling during to the false claim information is acceptable. 

Keep_pedalling

Just to clarify which insurance company is refusing to pay out your freind’s or the hit and run driver. If it is his then he should be claiming agains the other driver’s insurers.

DullGreyGuy

Keep_pedalling said:

Just to clarify which insurance company is refusing to pay out your freind’s or the hit and run driver. If it is his then he should be claiming agains the other driver’s insurers.

Their own insurance as they quotes terms of their policy... third party claims are not governed by policy T&Cs

sobi1

DullGreyGuy said:

No, they have to pay him and they then attempt to recover the outlay from the other party. In most cases this is successful, though your insurers remain out of pocket for their operating expenses that they cannot reclaim, but there are a minority of cases where outlay cannot be recovered. One example would be when it turns out the TP vehicle was stolen and the thief is unidentified - the fact the person ran on this case may raise alarm bells.

They have two options... fight their insurers, initially by registering a complaint or contact the third party insurer and claim directly from them. 

The Financial Ombudsman generally wont accept insurers declining a claim just because of the lack of an MOT even if that's what their policywording says however there are cases (where the insured also says they have an MOT and the lack of MOT only comes to light after where the ombudsman accept that cancelling during to the false claim information is acceptable. 

Thanks for the pdf link, it is very helpful.
Don't think TP car was stolen. 

SaverRate

whos the insurer? 

DullGreyGuy

sobi1 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

No, they have to pay him and they then attempt to recover the outlay from the other party. In most cases this is successful, though your insurers remain out of pocket for their operating expenses that they cannot reclaim, but there are a minority of cases where outlay cannot be recovered. One example would be when it turns out the TP vehicle was stolen and the thief is unidentified - the fact the person ran on this case may raise alarm bells.

They have two options... fight their insurers, initially by registering a complaint or contact the third party insurer and claim directly from them. 

The Financial Ombudsman generally wont accept insurers declining a claim just because of the lack of an MOT even if that's what their policywording says however there are cases (where the insured also says they have an MOT and the lack of MOT only comes to light after where the ombudsman accept that cancelling during to the false claim information is acceptable. 

Thanks for the pdf link, it is very helpful.
Don't think TP car was stolen. 

If you go onto the Financial Ombudsman website you can search for all decisions made by an ombudsman, search MOT and filter for insurance and you will find many examples of complaints with generally cover either dispute on settlement value because the lack of an MOT or declines because of an MOT.

Note that the Ombudsman's decisions do not form a precedent and so just because you find 100 cases where they say its unfair to decline a claim based on MOT alone even if the T&Cs say so it doesn't mean they have to come to the same conclusion the next time (though its a good indication they will - have seen changes over time though on some topics)

sobi1

SaverRate said:

whos the insurer? 

I think its with go skippy

sobi1

The email he received from the insurer also says: they will cancel his insurance if he doesn't get the MOT done within ten days.
However, his car is already written off due to the damage to front of the car. 
How do they expect him to get the MOT done now?
Also, if it says they will cancel his insurance in 10 days, does that mean his insurance is still valid and should cover him for the accident? 

SaverRate

sobi1 said:

SaverRate said:

whos the insurer? 

I think its with go skippy

Go Skippy is just a broker. On the insurance documents it will state the actual insurer. 

SaverRate

sobi1 said:

The email he received from the insurer also says: they will cancel his insurance if he doesn't get the MOT done within ten days.
However, his car is already written off due to the damage to front of the car. 
How do they expect him to get the MOT done now?
Also, if it says they will cancel his insurance in 10 days, does that mean his insurance is still valid and should cover him for the accident? 

I would be inclined to say yes it seems as though he is insured.