My car insurer won't defend or deal with third party claim

Stefastef

Someone has falsely alleged that I keyed their car while I was driving out of a nursery car park that they had almost completely blocked the entrance of. Foolishly I folded their wing mirror back out of frustration while getting past it (many point turns involved and this car had been parked in this way several times previously) without causing any damage and with no contact between the cars.

First they attempted to shake me down for money in person at the nursery the next day, threatening to call the police - which I politely encouraged them to do, and showing me CCTV from the house across the street that simply showed exactly what I described above, in night vision as it was dark. Then they attempted to stalk me on my drive home to find out where I live on at least 3 occasions over the next 2 weeks. 4 weeks after the alleged incident my insurer was then contacted about an alleged crash, claiming my car was in contact with their car but at the same time claiming it was keyed. I informed my insurer that there was no contact and their evidence (CCTV) showed nothing. My insurer rejected the third party claim as they did not believe there was any contact between the vehicles, and sent me a letter saying as far as they were concerned the matter was closed 6 weeks later.

Fast forward another 6 months and I get a letter from a solicitor acting on behalf of the third party seeking to recover damages, alleging the keying and now also a 'bent' mirror, and claiming there were witnesses (the road was empty, the CCTV would prove this, one would have to be standing in the road to see between the two cars).

I promptly contacted my insurer (who I had renewed with in the mean time) but they told me they would not be dealing with this as there is nothing to indicate that there was any contact between our cars. My legal expenses cover also proved useless with them not covering third party claims. So rather than defend a frivolous claim against me my insurer has used a loophole to avoid doing anything and thrown me under the bus.

What are my options?

secla

Sounds like he sueing for damage by keying not a collision so its nothing to do with your insurance company.
If he intends to take it to court rather than just send threatening solictor letters then you will find out what evidence he has pointing towards you, If  your were not involved then he will have nothing credible

Aretnap

It's hardly a loophole. Your car insurance covers liabilities which arise of of your use of the vehicle - which basically means collisions. It doesn't cover random acts of vandalism that you might commit (or rather be accused of committing) in a car park. If the other driver is no longer alleging contact between your cars, there isn't really anything for your car insurer to deal with. 

If the claim is that you accidentally damaged the wing mirror while folding it back then I suppose you could argue that folding it back so that you could drive out of the car park arose out of your use of the car, and so any damage that you caused should be covered. It's a bit of a stretch though - and certainly wouldn't apply to damage allegedly caused by keying the other car.

The liability section of your home insurance will cover you for accidental damage you cause while not driving a car - but only for accidental damage, not (alleged) deliberate acts like keying. 

So there's probably not much you can do at this point but deny the claims and wait and see if he actually takes you to court. The solicitor's letter will mostly be for show. Unless it somehow cost more than £10000 to repair the scratch any claim would be heard on the small claims track, where solicitors fees are not recoverable from the other party, win or lose. So the absolute worst case is that you end up paying the repair costs, not his legal fees on top. 

(How sure are you that there were no witnesses? I'm picturing this as happening at nursery closing time - usually quite a busy period. Personally I'd have been trying to find another parent who saw the incident myself, though six months in that might be a task order).

elsien

Do you have copies of the CCTV  because the nursery may well have wiped it by now.
Whatever the facts of the case, if the person has gone to the extent of trying to follow you home to see where you live I’d said it was a fairly safe that they may well believe that you did something. 

Stefastef

The street was deserted, I was one of the last pick-ups so nobody else was there on the street. Car park entrance is basically a driveway at 90 degrees to the street leading to a carpark, cars and vans parked all the way along the street on both sides. CCTV is from a private house directly opposite, the camera used is pointed directly across the street at the nursery and carpark entrance and doesn't cover any of the property, no CCTV signage either. If I have understood the data protection act correctly this would mean the footage would not be admissible in court as it is recording a public space, there is no signage, and arguably it is not being used for its intended purpose. There are 2 more cameras pointing up and down the street, again unlikely to cover any of the property, these would show that there wasn't anybody on the street. A fourth camera looks down above the front door, this seems to be the only camera actually covering the property.

The footage doesn't clearly identify me, just my car struggling to get out around his car (which was parked on the street, directly infront of the carpark entrance, so not on private property) and an arm coming out of my car very flimsily trying to fold a wing mirror.

First witness seemed to be his girlfriend, seems to have been a lodger at the property and claimed to have seen everything from her window directly below the camera, so an even more obscured view of the cars. Between their failed claim on my insurance and the solicitors letter the witness count has now increased to 2 with no details given.

Nursery CCTV only covers the carpark, not the street.

My suspicion is that the owner of the car deliberately parked his car in this way to coax somebody in to this position, as mentioned before it was parked similarly several times previously. No way to prove this but that is what I suspect. I spotted the car parked on the street some months later with damage along the other side of it. If somebody had keyed my car and I thought I knew who it was I would report it to the police and then to my insurer as criminal damage, not try to extort them for cash and try to stalk them before contacting my insurer several weeks later and claim it was a collision.

Aretnap

Stefastef said:

CCTV is from a private house directly opposite, the camera used is pointed directly across the street at the nursery and carpark entrance and doesn't cover any of the property, no CCTV signage either. If I have understood the data protection act correctly this would mean the footage would not be admissible in court as it is recording a public space, there is no signage, and arguably it is not being used for its intended purpose. 

I suspect that you'll find that you've misunderstood. It is actually rather difficult to make evidence inadmissible under English law, and even when it has been gathered in a manger which is not strictly legal it can generally still be used in court. The popular belief to the contrary comes mainly from American TV. And also, the DPA has broad exemptions for the release of data which is required in court proceedings.

tacpot12

You home insurance should cover you if you have Legal Expenses cover if you are sued, but will review the evidence and if they consider that you will lose in court, e.g. because it is clear that you did key the other car, then they won't defend you.

If you folded the mirror back using your hands, it is very unlikely you could exert enough force to damage the mirror. It would be for them to produce evidence that the mirror was damaged. You  should assert that manually folding the mirror in a manner intended by the manufacturer would not damage the mirror.

Aretnap

tacpot12 said:

You home insurance should cover you if you have Legal Expenses cover if you are sued...

Unlikely. As with car insurance, the legal expenses cover on your home insurance is primarily there for when you want to sue someone else, not for when someone sues you. 

If someone sues you over an accident (not involving you driving a car) then the standard liability cover on your home insurance would cover the cost of defending and/or paying the claim, but note the word "accident" - it's unlikely to be much help if your accused of causing damage deliberately.

DullGreyGuy

Aretnap said:

tacpot12 said:

You home insurance should cover you if you have Legal Expenses cover if you are sued...

Unlikely. As with car insurance, the legal expenses cover on your home insurance is primarily there for when you want to sue someone else, not for when someone sues you. 

Home LE is typically a little wider that Motor LE and will deal with defence work in certain circumstances but allegations of malicious damage won't be covered by normal policies