Stolen Car crashed into my wall. Claiming from the Car Insurer refused

Okell

Renfrewman said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

That's what I thought.  So long as the stolen car had a policy on it, I thought that regarding third party damage it didn't matter if the driver was uninsured.  But I'm probably wrong...

Okell

MyRealNameToo said:

Renfrewman said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

They arent legally obliged to if the driver is unidentified

I'm pretty sure he's been identified.  He's been prosecuted and convicted.

Grey_Critic

I repeat you claim off your house insurance who will then claim off the insurance/driver of the vehicle. 

Going DIY on these things only causes problems and can actually cost you money.

MyRealNameToo

Okell said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Renfrewman said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

They arent legally obliged to if the driver is unidentified

I'm pretty sure he's been identified.  He's been prosecuted and convicted.

Yes, though the RTA technically requires an unsatisfied judgement against the driver to force the insurer to act.

The statement without qualification that the insurer of the vehicle is always liable is incorrect, even it would become true in this case were the OP to get a judgement. 

Okell

MyRealNameToo said:

Okell said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Renfrewman said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

They arent legally obliged to if the driver is unidentified

I'm pretty sure he's been identified.  He's been prosecuted and convicted.

Yes, though the RTA technically requires an unsatisfied judgement against the driver to force the insurer to act.

The statement without qualification that the insurer of the vehicle is always liable is incorrect, even it would become true in this case were the OP to get a judgement. 

So the court has made a (crime) compensation order.  If the uninsured driver of the stolen car doesn't pay up, can the OP then sue the insurer of the owner of the stolen car, or does the OP need a civil judgment before he can do that?

Or does he just do what @Grey_Critic suggests and claim on his house insurance?  (Which seems the simplest and most obvious thing all round)

MyRealNameToo

Okell said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Okell said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Renfrewman said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

They arent legally obliged to if the driver is unidentified

I'm pretty sure he's been identified.  He's been prosecuted and convicted.

Yes, though the RTA technically requires an unsatisfied judgement against the driver to force the insurer to act.

The statement without qualification that the insurer of the vehicle is always liable is incorrect, even it would become true in this case were the OP to get a judgement. 

Or does he just do what @Grey_Critic suggests and claim on his house insurance?  (Which seems the simplest and most obvious thing all round)

The problem is that the OP has already had the work completed. Generally insurers dont like this as they want to inspect the damage for themselves and deem if the quote is reasonable or not. In a lot of these cases the car takes out a section of wall, the insured gets a quote to replace the whole wall but the insurer only covers repairing the damaged section as the rest of the wall is still sound. 

Its a relatively low value claim and if just one section was repaired then the insurer probably wouldnt get too excited but if its a bottom of the barrel type and the whole wall has been replaced there may be arguments on if that was necessary or not. 

If you are going down your own insurance route it's always best to involve them before you pay for your own repairs.