Drunk driver crashed into my parked car

damodam0

A drunk driver crashed into my parked car and was arrested.

It turns out that we share the same insurer but the insurance company is saying we should process our claim through our own policy as they need unspecified information from the police to process the claim through the drunk driver's policy and they cannot give us a timescale for getting hold of this. 

It seems very unfair? What should we do?

cw8825

if you need your car repaired quickly. Progress through your own policy

the insurer is going to need to see whether the other driver was in breach of their policy, the car may have been stolen, it might have been covered by another drivers insurance etc

If you don't mind waiting or the damage is not that bad you can wait to proceed but IMO i see little value, your insurer already knows you have been involved in an incident - this is one of the main reasons that a large portion of drivers go with the other insurer.

DullGreyGuy

damodam0 said:

A drunk driver crashed into my parked car and was arrested.

It turns out that we share the same insurer but the insurance company is saying we should process our claim through our own policy as they need unspecified information from the police to process the claim through the drunk driver's policy and they cannot give us a timescale for getting hold of this. 

It seems very unfair? What should we do?

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

There are several steps that need to be gone through to confirm who was driving, that they indeed above the drink driving limit etc before they'll confirm they are the insurer temporarily covering them. They equally dont want to be jumping the gun with their other policyholder accusing them of being a drunk driver if they have a very different version of events. 

facade

DullGreyGuy said:

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I never thought about it before, but does that mean it stays as an at fault claim until the drunk driver has repaid all the claim because they share the same insurer? It obviously shouldn't, or they could claim "at fault" whenever the third party is insured by them as they are ultimately down the cost of the accident but you never know

If it was different insurers then the claim would be non-fault as soon as the third party insurer paid up, and their problem to recover their outlay from their policy holder.

cw8825

facade said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I never thought about it before, but does that mean it stays as an at fault claim until the drunk driver has repaid all the claim because they share the same insurer? It obviously shouldn't, or they could claim "at fault" whenever the third party is insured by them as they are ultimately down the cost of the accident but you never know

If it was different insurers then the claim would be non-fault as soon as the third party insurer paid up, and their problem to recover their outlay from their policy holder.

wouldnt the insurer pay then make a recovery from the drunk driver?

facade

cw8825 said:

facade said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I never thought about it before, but does that mean it stays as an at fault claim until the drunk driver has repaid all the claim because they share the same insurer? It obviously shouldn't, or they could claim "at fault" whenever the third party is insured by them as they are ultimately down the cost of the accident but you never know

If it was different insurers then the claim would be non-fault as soon as the third party insurer paid up, and their problem to recover their outlay from their policy holder.

wouldnt the insurer pay then make a recovery from the drunk driver?

Yes, but that is my point, until the drunk driver pays them back they are out of pocket, it wouldn't surprise me if they could use that to keep it as an at-fault claim.

If the claim is for £20K and the drunk driver has never had a job and doesn't intend to get one, owns nothing except the clothes on their back etc., it will take a long time to repay.

cw8825

facade said:

cw8825 said:

facade said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I never thought about it before, but does that mean it stays as an at fault claim until the drunk driver has repaid all the claim because they share the same insurer? It obviously shouldn't, or they could claim "at fault" whenever the third party is insured by them as they are ultimately down the cost of the accident but you never know

If it was different insurers then the claim would be non-fault as soon as the third party insurer paid up, and their problem to recover their outlay from their policy holder.

wouldnt the insurer pay then make a recovery from the drunk driver?

Yes, but that is my point, until the drunk driver pays them back they are out of pocket, it wouldn't surprise me if they could use that to keep it as an at-fault claim.

If the claim is for £20K and the drunk driver has never had a job and doesn't intend to get one, owns nothing except the clothes on their back etc., it will take a long time to repay.

the third party insurer will pay back the OPs insurer
the fact they are the same company would if anything make the recovery easier

Aretnap

DullGreyGuy said:

damodam0 said:

A drunk driver crashed into my parked car and was arrested.

It turns out that we share the same insurer but the insurance company is saying we should process our claim through our own policy as they need unspecified information from the police to process the claim through the drunk driver's policy and they cannot give us a timescale for getting hold of this. 

It seems very unfair? What should we do?

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I thought that drunkenness came under RTA section 148 (the physical or mental condition of the person driving the vehicle) - and therefore couldn't be excluded as far as RTA liabilities were concerned?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

The drunk driver can still ultimately end up paying, but the insurer has to act as RTA insurer rather than as Article 75 insurer, which makes life a bit easier for the third party?

Herzlos

facade said:

cw8825 said:

facade said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I never thought about it before, but does that mean it stays as an at fault claim until the drunk driver has repaid all the claim because they share the same insurer? It obviously shouldn't, or they could claim "at fault" whenever the third party is insured by them as they are ultimately down the cost of the accident but you never know

If it was different insurers then the claim would be non-fault as soon as the third party insurer paid up, and their problem to recover their outlay from their policy holder.

wouldnt the insurer pay then make a recovery from the drunk driver?

Yes, but that is my point, until the drunk driver pays them back they are out of pocket, it wouldn't surprise me if they could use that to keep it as an at-fault claim.

If the claim is for £20K and the drunk driver has never had a job and doesn't intend to get one, owns nothing except the clothes on their back etc., it will take a long time to repay.

There's 2 separate transactions here confused by them being the same insurer.
The at fault driver will have the claim paid by their insurer to the OP, and then pursue the driver for their losses since they were drunk.

The OP's insurer will at that point treat the claim as not at fault.

The OP shouldn't need to worry too much about the other driver since there was insurance in place at the time, what happens there is irrelevant. I don't understand what the delay is but it'll be silly and bureaucratic.

DullGreyGuy

facade said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I never thought about it before, but does that mean it stays as an at fault claim until the drunk driver has repaid all the claim because they share the same insurer? It obviously shouldn't, or they could claim "at fault" whenever the third party is insured by them as they are ultimately down the cost of the accident but you never know

If it was different insurers then the claim would be non-fault as soon as the third party insurer paid up, and their problem to recover their outlay from their policy holder.

They cannot disadvantage you for it being a blue on blue claim and so they will recover the monies from his policy and set yours to non-fault. They will then independently try to recover their outlay from them and that will determine only when their policy changes from fault to non-fault. 

Aretnap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

damodam0 said:

A drunk driver crashed into my parked car and was arrested.

It turns out that we share the same insurer but the insurance company is saying we should process our claim through our own policy as they need unspecified information from the police to process the claim through the drunk driver's policy and they cannot give us a timescale for getting hold of this. 

It seems very unfair? What should we do?

Many policies have a Drink Driving exclusion which, assuming the driver was their policyholder or a named driver, will mean they are the MIB Article 75 insurer and ultimately their policyholder will be the one personally paying for all the damages. 

I thought that drunkenness came under RTA section 148 (the physical or mental condition of the person driving the vehicle) - and therefore couldn't be excluded as far as RTA liabilities were concerned?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148

The drunk driver can still ultimately end up paying, but the insurer has to act as RTA insurer rather than as Article 75 insurer, which makes life a bit easier for the third party?

Yes you're right, I'm forgetting my sections as it gets longer since I did claims. In my defence we didnt have a DD exclusion and I dealt with defence work so wasn't something that came up often.