no courtesy car/ legal cover on car insurance help!!!!

Bossyboots

You cannot assume he has house insurance at all, never mind a policy that covers this sort of thing. Many people don't. He may not even be able to afford the £120 excess. The legal cover insurers will not agree to cover for chasing the pedestrian if they believe he doesn't have the means to pay.

Anyway, those are the worst case scenarios. Lets hope that he does have cover or a property against which a charge can be registered if compensation is awarded.

Lets also hope that the police accept what the witnesses say about it being the pedestrian's fault. A word of caution though (and I'm afraid it is probably what you don't want to hear) my friend's mum was knocked down by a car and the police did not prosecute despite witnesses saying it was the driver's fault. However, she instructed a personal injury solicitor who traced witnesses saying he had accelerated through amber traffic lights and would not have been able to stop. He had admitted in his police statement that he saw my friend's mum. She got a five figure payout from the driver's insurers when they settled. The burden of proof for criminal proceedings is different to civil so there is the risk that the pedestrian will claim from your parents' insurers, despite what the witnesses say and any action the police take. Also, if he fails the eyesight test I'm afraid that will strengthen the pedestrian's case that it was the driver's fault.

lisyloo

You cannot assume he has house insurance at all, never mind a policy that covers this sort of thing. Many people don't. He may not even be able to afford the £120 excess

We are not making assumptions. We have done some detective work. We believe he has the means to pay.
Personally I would not make a claim for £120 on any insurance policy as loadings, loss of no claims bonus and excess make it not worthwhile.The burden of proof for criminal proceedings is different to civil so there is the risk that the pedestrian will claim from your parents' insurers, despite what the witnesses say and any action the police take.[/QUOTE]

Yes he can make a claim but if we have a witness and other evidence (by way of tyre marks) then I cannot see what grounds he can succed on (from what I know so far).
Just because he makes a claim (which he hasn't done yet), it doesn't mean he will succeed.

Also, if he fails the eyesight test I'm afraid that will strengthen the pedestrian's case that it was the driver's fault.

I totally agree.
The fault is not yet settled, but I am not currently aware of anythign implicating the driver and I am aware of serveral things implicating the pedestrian (tyre maeks plus witness). Of course something could comke to light later but he has not currently made any attempts to make any claim which the insurance company are consider an "admission of liability" (I don't agree with this logic).

lisyloo

You cannot assume he has house insurance at all, never mind a policy that covers this sort of thing. Many people don't. He may not even be able to afford the £120 excess

We are not making assumptions. We have done some detective work as he is local and therefore his situation is known. We believe he has the means to pay.
Personally I would not make a claim for £120 on any insurance policy as loadings, loss of no claims bonus and excess make it not worthwhile.

The burden of proof for criminal proceedings is different to civil so there is the risk that the pedestrian will claim from your parents' insurers, despite what the witnesses say and any action the police take.

Yes he can make a claim but if we have a witness and other evidence (by way of tyre marks) then I cannot see what grounds he can succed on (from what I know so far).
Just because he makes a claim (which he hasn't done yet), it doesn't mean he will succeed.

Also, if he fails the eyesight test I'm afraid that will strengthen the pedestrian's case that it was the driver's fault.

I totally agree.
The fault is not yet settled, but I am not currently aware of anythign implicating the driver and I am aware of serveral things implicating the pedestrian (tyre maeks plus witness). Of course something could comke to light later but he has not currently made any attempts to make any claim which the insurance company are consider an "admission of liability" (I don't agree with this logic).

I would still be interested to know why MarkyMarkD thinks that they won't get anything.
I can't see an issue with claiming a small amount from someone with the means to pay if you have legal insurance and evidence to back you up.

soolin

I had real trouble getting a courtesy car out of my insurers quickly after my recent accident, they faffed around even though the driver that hit me admitted liability immediately. However, th eother drivers insurance company phoned me 2 days after the accident and when theyheard I didn't have a car they delivered one to me within 2 hours.

The car was lovely but I was only able to keep it until either I received the cheque in settlement for my own car, or a month whichever came first.

Soo

nadnad

Pedestrians usually get the benefit of the doubt and I doubt you will get anything out of him - in fact its much more likely that he would get money out of your parents' insurance company - especially if there are no independant witnesses. I would keep at the police to find out whats happening and then take it from there.

MarkyMarkD

I don't believe you should rely on getting anything for nadnad's reasons, and also because (at the time I posted) you hadn't posted that the pedestrian was financially capable of meeting the claim.

Given the new information, and that you have a witness, I would certainly pursue it. But there is an overwhelming presumption that the motorist is always guilty even where the evidence is glaringly to the contrary.

Even if the pedestrian ran out without looking (as your witness says) and the car was going at a safe speed (as the forensics say), it could still be the driver's fault. If someone walks in the road 200 yards in front of a car going at 30mph, the driver has plenty of stopping distance. If they fail to stop, they were driving without due care and attention and it was their fault they hit the pedestrian.

I'm being devil's advocate (not for a change!) but I suppose I am saying I wouldn't count any chickens, not that I wouldn't pursue it.

If the driver fails the eyesight test, you have NO chance of success against the pedestrian IMHO and your legal expenses insurers would doubtless refuse to pursue it in those circumstances.

lisyloo

OK thanks, we are aware of all those issues.

I guess a lot depends on the pedestrians attitude.
If he decides to offer the £120 then there's no problem. If he decides to dispute it then that's a different matter.
So far (4 weeks) he has not made a claim against them.

nadnad

I honestly can't see him offering the money - and read nothing into the fact that its only 4 weeks - I works in claims and they sometimes take an absolute age to come out of the woodwork I believe the statute of limitations is 3 years?.

lisyloo

I honestly can't see him offering the money

I don't think it's the end of the world if they lose £120, however I am suprised that you think NO-ONE would do this.

If I caused an accident and caused damage to someone else's personal property then I would personally want to set things straight.
If it was a large amount of money then I'd claim off my house insurance. If it was a small amount of money then I'd pay it out of my own money.

I would personally fell terrible if I injured someone or wrote their car off.
Am I the only person in the world who would feel an obligation to put things right??

Even if he doesn't want to pay then if the evidence is there (and he has money) then why shouldn't the legal cover (and insurance company) suceed in making a claim against him?
I am aware of the bias against the motorist, but if the evidence shows otherwise then I'm not sure why the claim would lose.
Is there something I'm missing or does the bias even work where all the evidence shows otherwise??

nadnad

May I ask how on earth is the car written off - if there is this much damage this would indicate that the pedestrian must have been seriously injured?! Anyway any pedestrian that is knocked down will always blame the car - it goes back to the old thought that "pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way". Also if the pedestrian is hurt and puts in a claim then the liklihood is that your parents insurance company will pay out - if not everything then an apportionment of the claim - for contributory negligence - if the pedestrian got a solicitor it wouldn't be too hard to swing it - I've worked in litigation and now work as a personal injury claims handler. From my experience I would say that any solicitor would state that your father was not driving with enough due car and attention etc etc and his age would no doubt come into account - this is what makes me think that not too many people would pay the £120 because if they got any sort of legal advice they would no doubt be told it wasn't their fault and by no means pay anything.