Hit and run car accident and credit hire

MarcoM

Hello,
I hope someone can advise me on credit hire issues for a courtesy car I am in the process of getting from Enterprise.

Someone crashed into the back of me at traffic lights and just drove off. My dashcam recorded the footage and I was able to read the reg number and the vehicle make.

My insurer tells me this car has insurance on it, my insurer has put my claim through on a non fault basis and put me on credit hire with enterprise for the courtesy car. I have not yet signed papers as I am not picking up the hire car till mine goes in for repair. I had a call from enterprise hq and was given some tcs verbally, such as the need to be truthful and cooperate when necessary. I am happy to do this.

However, my worry is that they may have been too eager to put me on credit hire without making sure that the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle was known and with no knowledge as to whether the driver at the time was insured even though the car appears to be insured.

What happens if the identity of the driver cannot be established? Would I then be liable for enterprise's costs even if I cooperate fully? Basically at this point I dont know who was driving the other vehicle and I suspect whoever it was will have no insurance.

Thank you for your help

nyermen

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Otherwise, police doing insurance checks would never know without checking identities, often those camera vans are just checking that the car is at least insured by someone.

Hence why there are cases here on MSE where people buying a car and subsequently responsible for an accident are only 50% paid out by their insurer because the previous owner forgot to cancel their insurance so they also pay out.

43722

It may just be me, but I can't see myself accepting car hire without the full authority of my insurance company. I wouldn't want to risk the car hire company making me liable for car hire costs.

martinbainbridge1975

No reason to worry - insurers would not put you into a credit hire vehicle without sufficient criteria being met.  I worked in this line of insurance some years ago and the claims people have a duty of car to not expose the customer to risk, if there was any doubt you would not get a credit hire vehicle.

The fact you have dash cam footage identifying the vehicle is a big factor as with the reg number, the insurers are able to identify the insurance company covering the 3rd party vehicle online, they will contact them provide the footage and likely get an admission of liability.

You may well find by the time your car goes for repair that liability has been sorted,

MarcoM

43722 it is my insurer who put me onto the credit hire company.

MarcoM

martinbainbridge1975 said:

No reason to worry - insurers would not put you into a credit hire vehicle without sufficient criteria being met.  I worked in this line of insurance some years ago and the claims people have a duty of car to not expose the customer to risk, if there was any doubt you would not get a credit hire vehicle.

The fact you have dash cam footage identifying the vehicle is a big factor as with the reg number, the insurers are able to identify the insurance company covering the 3rd party vehicle online, they will contact them provide the footage and likely get an admission of liability.

You may well find by the time your car goes for repair that liability has been sorted,

Hi, My worry is what happens if the driver cannot be traced. The car is insured so would the claim be against the registered keeper's insurance?

martinbainbridge1975

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

DullGreyGuy

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

martinbainbridge1975

DullGreyGuy said:

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

the insurer of the vehicle will pay the claims under RTA cover on a without prejudice basis, it is an absolute minefield, I don't miss working in insurance 

DullGreyGuy

martinbainbridge1975 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

the insurer of the vehicle will pay the claims under RTA cover on a without prejudice basis, it is an absolute minefield, I don't miss working in insurance 

Not for an untraced driver

Most commonly comes up with a stolen vehicle where it subsequently crashes into something/one and is abandoned. Was a real pain because the FNOL team kept registering them as a second claim because it was painful to have to call IT to change the original claim from Theft to RTC to be able to capture the TP details and deal with any approaches from them, their insurers or other representatives.

Only had two cases where the thief was identified, the rest of them we repudiated liability as untraced driver.

Where the driver was traced then yes we'd deal as RTA insurer rather than requiring the third party to get judgement against the driver to avoid the legal costs it adds. Some insurers wont though as their maths shows the legal costs are offset by those who abandon their claim  and so claims closed as withdrawn. 

MarcoM

DullGreyGuy said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

the insurer of the vehicle will pay the claims under RTA cover on a without prejudice basis, it is an absolute minefield, I don't miss working in insurance 

Not for an untraced driver

Most commonly comes up with a stolen vehicle where it subsequently crashes into something/one and is abandoned. Was a real pain because the FNOL team kept registering them as a second claim because it was painful to have to call IT to change the original claim from Theft to RTC to be able to capture the TP details and deal with any approaches from them, their insurers or other representatives.

Only had two cases where the thief was identified, the rest of them we repudiated liability as untraced driver.

Where the driver was traced then yes we'd deal as RTA insurer rather than requiring the third party to get judgement against the driver to avoid the legal costs it adds. Some insurers wont though as their maths shows the legal costs are offset by those who abandon their claim  and so claims closed as withdrawn. 

so in that case would the credit hire go after the victim for costs?
if so could the victim argue that the credit hire have not due diligence on the accident / driver?