Car insurance claim - can someone help me understand please?

DevilsAdvocate1

My dad was in a car accident in February.  It was quickly decided by both insurance companies that it would be a 50/50 blame.  My dad's car was written off and he quickly received the money to get a new one.

Immediately after the accident, my dad just sat the driving seat in a state of shock.  It was commented on at the time.  A witness knocked on his window about 15 minutes after the accident took place and he was still not with it.  He did come round.  An ambulance was called, and his 80 year old girlfriend was taken to hospital.

In the days after the accident, it became apparent that his girlfriend had developed mobility issues and now needs 1 or 2 operations (not sure yet).  My dad has been suffering from a few health issues too, he has become very depressed and has some issues with one shoulder.  He has been seeing a therapist and a physio for these issues which he has been paying privately for.

This is where I am confused.  My dad wanted to claim for these expenses on his insurance.  He had comprehensive insurance.  He is convinced that he can not claim this back from his insurance and that he would have to make a claim on the other person's insurance.  A solicitor became involved.   A witness suddenly appeared after 7 months and said that everyone was fine after the accident, that no one went to hospital as far as they were aware (this is wrong) though they admitted my dad was not with it after the accident and was in shock.  This witness also said a load of stuff which was not true (and which he could not have known, such as assuming my dad was going in a different direction to where he actually was going).

The solicitor has said that as a result of the new witness my dad is unlikely to win his case and so they are dropping it.  But did their need to be a case - can't dad claim off his insurance in the way he did to get a replacement car?  Or is it as dad believes and that you are not covered  for your own liability when comprehensively insured if you are deemed to be partly at fault?

user1977

No, you can't claim against your own insurance for injuries to the extent that you were to blame for them. His passenger could however claim for her injuries.

Aylesbury_Duck

I wouldn't get hung up on the witness's account, either.  People can be notoriously bad at recollecting things the next day, let alone some time after an event.  

MyRealNameToo

DevilsAdvocate1 said:

My dad was in a car accident in February.  It was quickly decided by both insurance companies that it would be a 50/50 blame.  My dad's car was written off and he quickly received the money to get a new one.

Immediately after the accident, my dad just sat the driving seat in a state of shock.  It was commented on at the time.  A witness knocked on his window about 15 minutes after the accident took place and he was still not with it.  He did come round.  An ambulance was called, and his 80 year old girlfriend was taken to hospital.

In the days after the accident, it became apparent that his girlfriend had developed mobility issues and now needs 1 or 2 operations (not sure yet).  My dad has been suffering from a few health issues too, he has become very depressed and has some issues with one shoulder.  He has been seeing a therapist and a physio for these issues which he has been paying privately for.

This is where I am confused.  My dad wanted to claim for these expenses on his insurance.  He had comprehensive insurance.  He is convinced that he can not claim this back from his insurance and that he would have to make a claim on the other person's insurance.  A solicitor became involved.   A witness suddenly appeared after 7 months and said that everyone was fine after the accident, that no one went to hospital as far as they were aware (this is wrong) though they admitted my dad was not with it after the accident and was in shock.  This witness also said a load of stuff which was not true (and which he could not have known, such as assuming my dad was going in a different direction to where he actually was going).

The solicitor has said that as a result of the new witness my dad is unlikely to win his case and so they are dropping it.  But did their need to be a case - can't dad claim off his insurance in the way he did to get a replacement car?  Or is it as dad believes and that you are not covered  for your own liability when comprehensively insured if you are deemed to be partly at fault?

The key difference between comprehensive insurance and TPFT is the fact you are covered for damage to your own vehicle whereas with TPFT your vehicle is only covered for damage resulting from theft or fire. 

Most Comp policies include a token PA section, this will pay out a relatively modest sum for death or major injuries (loss of limb or an eye kind of level) but not anything more modest. 

Many Comp policies will also cover a very token amount for medical expenses or such, Direct Line for example covers up to £200. 

Since the explosion of the aggregators though insurers have been sliming down what's covered by Comp policies, and sometimes moving what used to be standard cover to an optional extra or simply not available so you very much have to read your policy book. 

Obviously this just applies to your father and their claim. His lady friend is a totally different matter if she was injured as she can sue either/both drivers and will be considered a third party to both.