Insurance invalid - Claim Car Hire and Letter

Mayaxyx16

Hello,

I will keep this short as possible.

Almost two years ago:
I hit the back of a car on the motorway
The car I hit, hit the one in front of it (no visible damage)
My insurer said I wasn’t covered because I was coming home from work (my bad, didn’t realize that was a thing)
After a year a half I receive a bill for 11k. Majority of this bill 5k for Car Hire and 5k for Car Damages.
I did try to argue I wasn’t fully at fault for hitting the first car, that the driver I hit had 50% liability due to not having safe distance (also had witnesses saying none of us kept distance)
I responded to my Insurer that before I agree to any payment, I would like to see evidence of receipts and invoices for all costs.
A WEEK Later I receive a Court Claim Letter from the car I hit that they withdraw any previous claim submitted and would like to be compensated 3k for the car damage. 

I will be consulting a solicitor tomorrow but I was wondering if any of you would be able to tell me why I am getting a separate letter, what it could mean..
Have they realized I am deemed uninsured and think I won’t pay and they are trying to threaten me.
and MOST IMPORTANTLY, If I deduct 3k for Car damage for this car I actually hit, does that mean they aren’t claiming for any injury or car hire? If so, does the sum of 5k Car Hire for the first car seem astronomical? I did speak to a friend who works in Insurance and he said the norm is 14-21 days car hire at a rate of £60-£80 (The car was Pegeout 4x4, nothing too fancy. All the driver said at the time was that a light came on the dashboard and I was repeatedly told from my Insurer that he was waiting for a mechanic to check it for quite some time.

Appreciate you all responding. This is stressful. 😩 

DullGreyGuy

You need to speak to your insurers.

Seems likely that this claim now received is from the other vehicle involved hence the £3k -v- the £11k for the one you went into the back of. Your insurers are still the RTA insurers of the vehicle and so may decide to defend the litigation on your behalf but then the bill gets added to the £11k you already owe them. 

£5k hire is a high number but we've had people come on here and say their car has been in the repair shop for 6+ months because parts aren't available and they weren't driving anything exotic. This is one of the reasons everyone's insurance has gone up so much because of the knock on effects that delays in parts is still having. 

TELLIT01

Mayaxyx16 said:

My insurer said I wasn’t covered because I was coming home from work (my bad, didn’t realize that was a thing)

Commuting cover, which is what your insurers are saying you didn't have, used to be pretty standard on Comprehensive insurance but that is no longer the case.  Some do cover it by default, some will add it at no extra cost (so why not just include it?), and others include at a cost.  'Social, domestic and pleasure' is the most common baseline these days.

Hope you get things sorted out as the potential ramifications could be severe.

DullGreyGuy

TELLIT01 said:

Mayaxyx16 said:

My insurer said I wasn’t covered because I was coming home from work (my bad, didn’t realize that was a thing)

Commuting cover, which is what your insurers are saying you didn't have, used to be pretty standard on Comprehensive insurance but that is no longer the case.  Some do cover it by default, some will add it at no extra cost (so why not just include it?), and others include at a cost.  'Social, domestic and pleasure' is the most common baseline these days.

Hope you get things sorted out as the potential ramifications could be severe.

Dont think its ever been the baseline... its certainly the most common choice made but every insurer I can remember has always offered the option of SD&P and it is normally fractionally cheaper if taken at inception and you had to declare if it was SD&P, SDP&C or Business

Just because it's the most common selection doesn't, in my head at least, make it the "standard".  Ford is the most common car brand in the UK that doesn't make Ford the "standard" car manufacturer for car insurance if you've got a Fiat. 

Things like Driving Other Cars is an example of something that used to come as standard on all comp policies but is now being stripped off budget policies. 

Mayaxyx16

DullGreyGuy said:

You need to speak to your insurers.

Seems likely that this claim now received is from the other vehicle involved hence the £3k -v- the £11k for the one you went into the back of. Your insurers are still the RTA insurers of the vehicle and so may decide to defend the litigation on your behalf but then the bill gets added to the £11k you already owe them. 

£5k hire is a high number but we've had people come on here and say their car has been in the repair shop for 6+ months because parts aren't available and they weren't driving anything exotic. This is one of the reasons everyone's insurance has gone up so much because of the knock on effects that delays in parts is still having. 

No. When I called the Insurance company to confirm what the 11k bill was for they confirmed it was for both cars involved in the accident, not just the first in the chain. I think they were expecting me to just pay it straightaway and when I requested proof of receipts of these costs that is when this 3k letter was issued to me separate. It does state on that letter that they Withdraw any previous offer to settle.

So if I minus the 3k plus excess of £540 (which I am not sure why I need to pay her excess) and interest rate of 8% the car I actually hit and should be liable for wants 4k. That means the Car Hire bill is only for the first car which in my opinion the car I hit should be partly liable for as well. It does seem a high amount anyway.

DullGreyGuy

You would need to reimburse the other drivers for the excesses and any other uninsured losses they have suffered like injury, hire car, loss of earnings etc. Normally your insurers pick this up but obv without valid insurance in place it falls to you. 

You are required to indemnify the other drivers which is to put them in the same financial position as they were before the accident. Before the accident they didnt need to pay a £540 excess and so you need to remburse it. 

I still think you need to speak to the technical department of your insurer to get to the bottom of how the litigation relates the monies they are claiming from you themselves. It would be unorthodox to reclaim the monies from a breach of contract insured prior to actually having paid it out and so this £3k + £540 is almost certainly an additional sum owed. 

chrisw

If the car you hit had managed to stop before you shunted it into the first car then I don't see how the car you hit could be remotely liable, regardless of how much space remained between the two once stationary.

Mayaxyx16

DullGreyGuy said:

You would need to reimburse the other drivers for the excesses and any other uninsured losses they have suffered like injury, hire car, loss of earnings etc. Normally your insurers pick this up but obv without valid insurance in place it falls to you. 

You are required to indemnify the other drivers which is to put them in the same financial position as they were before the accident. Before the accident they didnt need to pay a £540 excess and so you need to remburse it. 

I still think you need to speak to the technical department of your insurer to get to the bottom of how the litigation relates the monies they are claiming from you themselves. It would be unorthodox to reclaim the monies from a breach of contract insured prior to actually having paid it out and so this £3k + £540 is almost certainly an additional sum owed. 

It cannot be an additional cause they confirmed it was included in the settled 11k bill. Surely they cannot force me to pay damages twice for the same thing. That is unreasonable.