Insurance claiming outlay back after accident

facade

If it was the other driver's fault, with witnesses too, then the other driver has to pay for your damages (& costs like recovery & storage)

You asked your insurer to deal with it (claimed on your insurance) and they paid you the value of the vehicle. They also sold your vehicle for scrap.(They will have paid any costs like recovery, sweeping the road etc.)

Your insurer will/has then claim(ed) that money from the other driver, and her insurer will pay them.

Now your insurer is saying they won't pay you anything, because of your conviction.

If they haven't recovered their money from the third party, then you will have to return the money they paid you, BUT they should pay you what they got selling your car as scrap (or get creative about what they had to pay for recovery & cleaning the road and claim that the scrap money paid that).  Then you can claim directly from the third party and their insurer should pay you the value of the car (plus the recovery fee & cleaning the road if you are being charged this)

If they have recovered their money from the the third party then they simply can't just take your money back.

It gets complicated if your insurer "did a deal" with the other insurer and agreed to share fault say 50/50 as then 50% of your payout would be recoverable because it came from your insurer (but the scrap money can't be split)

What you need to know is what your insurers outlay was, and what recovery they have made from the third party.

flying_low

Thank for your comments 

Herzlos

Where does the drink drive conviction come in? Is it a historic thing you didn't declare and they are regarding the insurance to be void, or did it come from this incident and they are claiming you aren't covered?

angrycrow

Herzlos said:

Where does the drink drive conviction come in? Is it a historic thing you didn't declare and they are regarding the insurance to be void, or did it come from this incident and they are claiming you aren't covered?

Most insurers now include a clause that if you are over the drink drive limit they will not pay the claim. Op has confirmed they were convicted of being over the limit. Suspect op failed to mention they were being prosecuted to there insurers and they found out when they applied for the police report after they paid for the ops vehicle. 

They would then be entitled to recover the costs from the op. Where things get muddier is if they can recover anything they pay to a third party as RTA insurers. 

facade

angrycrow said:

Herzlos said:

Where does the drink drive conviction come in? Is it a historic thing you didn't declare and they are regarding the insurance to be void, or did it come from this incident and they are claiming you aren't covered?

Most insurers now include a clause that if you are over the drink drive limit they will not pay the claim. Op has confirmed they were convicted of being over the limit. Suspect op failed to mention they were being prosecuted to there insurers and they found out when they applied for the police report after they paid for the ops vehicle. 

They would then be entitled to recover the costs from the op. Where things get muddier is if they can recover anything they pay to a third party as RTA insurers. 

But if they have already recovered their costs from the third party they cannot recover them again from the OP.

Further muddiness is whether they did some sort of split liability deal with the third party, in which case they are entitled to recover their share of the payout, possibly including what they paid the third party.

Grey_Critic

We seem to have TWO threads for this - which is the correct one?

DullGreyGuy

angrycrow said:

Herzlos said:

Where does the drink drive conviction come in? Is it a historic thing you didn't declare and they are regarding the insurance to be void, or did it come from this incident and they are claiming you aren't covered?

Most insurers now include a clause that if you are over the drink drive limit they will not pay the claim. Op has confirmed they were convicted of being over the limit. Suspect op failed to mention they were being prosecuted to there insurers and they found out when they applied for the police report after they paid for the ops vehicle. 

They would then be entitled to recover the costs from the op. Where things get muddier is if they can recover anything they pay to a third party as RTA insurers. 

If the OP is correct and they are not at fault for the accident then their insurers wouldn't have to act as RTA Insurer 

facade said:

angrycrow said:

Herzlos said:

Where does the drink drive conviction come in? Is it a historic thing you didn't declare and they are regarding the insurance to be void, or did it come from this incident and they are claiming you aren't covered?

Most insurers now include a clause that if you are over the drink drive limit they will not pay the claim. Op has confirmed they were convicted of being over the limit. Suspect op failed to mention they were being prosecuted to there insurers and they found out when they applied for the police report after they paid for the ops vehicle. 

They would then be entitled to recover the costs from the op. Where things get muddier is if they can recover anything they pay to a third party as RTA insurers. 

But if they have already recovered their costs from the third party they cannot recover them again from the OP.

Further muddiness is whether they did some sort of split liability deal with the third party, in which case they are entitled to recover their share of the payout, possibly including what they paid the third party.

An RTA Insurer has to pay a third party, their right of recovery is against the driver of their vehicle and their policyholder if the policyholder was complicit.

If the OP's insurer has already recovered their outlay from the third party insurer then they have no right of recovery from the OP as that would be undue enrichment. 

Ectophile

Grey_Critic said:

We seem to have TWO threads for this - which is the correct one?

Both of them.  They are different cases.