will my car insurance claim be refused because i had 2 bald tyres?

missile

Quentin wrote: »

The condition of the car tyres has no bearing on the innocent third party being able to claim from the op's insurance company.

I hope you are right, but my point is about misplaced sympathy for someone driving on bald tyres

Quentin

Of course I am right.

If you are hit by an insured drunk driver (etc), you wouldn't expect his insurer to say sorry, he invalidated his insurance when he drove under the influence (it's just the same with bald tyres etc).

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

Of course I am right.

If you are hit by an insured drunk driver (etc), you wouldn't expect his insurer to say sorry, he invalidated his insurance when he drove under the influence (it's just the same with bald tyres etc).

In this case you are right, but only because s.151 of the Road Traffic Act specifically stipulates that an insurer cannot avoid third party liability due to the condition of the insured vehicle.

However, there are other breaches of policy terms which can render the guilty party's policy void, the result being that the victim would have to sue the negligent driver and could NOT claim from the insurer. The insurer would then only come into play if a judgement against the negligent driver was unsatisfied.

missile

PM by lisyloo>
Thanks for your time.
It has been quite instructional (mostly in communication).
I have to go now because I feel my time is better spent elsewhere.
I totally respect your right to have different opinions and that's perfectly ok.

Cheers and bye.

I appologised for what you considered to be my offensive comments, it is a shame you could not reciprocate. :A

MarkyMarkD

raskazz If the guilty driver was uninsured (whether blatantly or due to something making the policy void) then the Motor Insurers' Bureau arrangements will come into play. The injured party won't be left without anyone to claim against. And as Quentin has correctly pointed out, in most cases the insurer will settle the third party claim and recover their outlay from their insured if the circumstances mean that the loss isn't insured.

raskazz

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

raskazz If the guilty driver was uninsured (whether blatantly or due to something making the policy void) then the Motor Insurers' Bureau arrangements will come into play. The injured party won't be left without anyone to claim against. And as Quentin/B] has correctly pointed out, in most cases the insurer will settle the third party claim and recover their outlay from their insured if the circumstances mean that the loss isn't insured.

I am fully aware of the existence of the MIB. But Quentin said:

"... has no bearing on the innocent third party being able to claim from the op's insurance company."

Which is not strictly correct for all cases where a policy is void. In the case of uninsured drivers the MIB will only step in where there is an unsatisfied judgement against the driver responsible. So the victim has to sue the driver responsible first, they cannot go straight to the insurer. If the negligent driver can satisfy the judgement then why would his insurer get involved?

Edited to add: Hence why I said "The insurer would then only come into play if a judgement against the negligent driver was unsatisfied" in my original post.

MarkyMarkD

I didn't realise that a court judgement was required before the MIB would pay up, although it makes sense (given that insured drivers pay for the MIB and its costs should be minimised).

V_tricky

If the OP's insurer do void the policy, they are likely to still have obligations under the Road Traffic Act.

Whether the insurer will INSIST on a judgment against the OP depends.

If the third party's claim includes an injury element, it may be worth their while dealing with it on an Assignment & Agreement basis (where they agree to pay the third party claim as long as the third party then transfers their right of recovery to the OP's insurer) or under a Consent & Indemnity basis (where the OP agrees to let the insurer manage the claim and promises to pay the insurer back the claims cost).

If they deal with it on the above basis, it means that they can try to manage the eventual claims cost down.

If it's only repairs & hire then it's more likely that they will wait for an unsatisfied judgment before paying as an RTA insurer (and then claiming that money back from the OP).

One last thing though...

Whilst strictly speaking the insurance company can decline the claim, and may be able to void the policy, it doesn't necessarily mean they will.

I would NEVER suggest that ANYONE drive in any other than a safe condition, in a safe vehicle, but I do know that at least one of the top three insurers do tend to take a 'view' on situations like this - treat each on on it's merits etc and there will be plenty of past cases where they've just swallowed the cost without taking any punitive action.

I wonder how the OP's getting on...

live4therush

Hi to all

I feel that it is worth posting here once again over a year from the crash to update the thread on how things have progressed on my claim, and hopefully
be of some educational value.

firstly,I would like to thank everyone who posted informative and constructive replies. and to all of you who said that my insurer would repudiate the claim and threaten to take action to reclaim the third party costs were right on the money. my tyre condition did indeed breach the terms and conditions stated in my policy.

however, I always maintained they the front tyres were in no way a contrubuting factor to this incident since the incident all stemmed from losing traction of the back two wheels in a tight corner.

so i list the developments in my incident:

crash 14th feb 08 car recovered at scene

engineer visit within 3 weeks, car declared total loss, engineer advised on tyre condition

letter arrived from churchill asking for driving licence copies, MOT documents, previous crashes, speeding points etc, and an explanation on tyre condition

documents sent to churchill, but confirmed as "lost" by royal mail AFTER arrival at churchill bromley office

documents sent again via fax, and confirmed reciept

late april time chirchill sent a letter refusing to settle claim, and asking me to sign a declaration form to accept all third party costs etc.

..................................

at this point I wrote back to churchill to say i did not intend to sign this declaration form, and that i truly felt that their decision to repudiate the claim was unjustified and I intended to appeal against the claim.

It took all the way till december before a claim handler became available, but within a couple of months, he had got churchill to reverse thier decision about the claim. It turns out that the original engineer who assessed the vehicle actually noted that the tyres were below the legal limit, but would not have contributed to the incident just had I claimed all along.

I feel that insurers oftan get away with murder when it comes to refusing to pay claims out with unjustifyable reasons, and that anyone in this situation in future should look closeley at which regulatory body governs the insurer, in churchills case the Financial Ombudsman service.

please also note, I am not saying i wasnt at fault in the first place, missile's post many posts back that I could have hit a kid rather than a parked car was true, and believe me I had many a lost nights sleep with such thoughts.

so for anybody who's had a tough time with insurance claims, there is hope..

jimmy

dacouch

I trust when you asked Churchill for a substantial ex gratia payment to make up for all of the hassle they said...Oh yeees.