Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • gord115
    • By gord115 10th Apr 18, 6:38 PM
    • 860Posts
    • 232Thanks
    gord115
    Will insurance pay out on other car?
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:38 PM
    Will insurance pay out on other car? 10th Apr 18 at 6:38 PM
    My son had an accident this morning on the way to work.
    He ran in to the back of someone in traffic at about 15mph.

    He is fully comp.

    The guy was ok about it but the rear bumper was hanging off the newish car with parking sensors etc.

    All details were swapped and my son 'phoned his insurance only to be told he wasn't insured for commuting. He says he had no idea.

    The other guy now says his car was undriveable (even though he drove off) and that he has whiplash!!!.

    What we need to know is if my son wasn't insured for commuting will the insurance pay out for the other car, or will my son have to pay for that, the whiplash claim as well as his own car?

    Any advice appreciated.
Page 1
    • Nodding Donkey
    • By Nodding Donkey 10th Apr 18, 6:52 PM
    • 2,590 Posts
    • 2,190 Thanks
    Nodding Donkey
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:52 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:52 PM
    They will have to pay the other driver but will be looking to recover their costs from your son.
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 10th Apr 18, 7:08 PM
    • 2,078 Posts
    • 1,258 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:08 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:08 PM
    My son had an accident this morning on the way to work.
    He ran in to the back of someone in traffic at about 15mph.

    He is fully comp.

    The guy was ok about it but the rear bumper was hanging off the newish car with parking sensors etc.

    All details were swapped and my son 'phoned his insurance only to be told he wasn't insured for commuting. He says he had no idea. What does his certificate/schedule say?

    The other guy now says his car was undriveable (even though he drove off) and that he has whiplash!!!. It probably isnt driveable, moveable yes.

    What we need to know is if my son wasn't insured for commuting will the insurance pay out for the other car, or will my son have to pay for that, the whiplash claim as well as his own car?

    Any advice appreciated.
    Originally posted by gord115
    Theres little you can do to disprove whiplash, it could get expensive for your son. Does he have any fund or assets when they come knocking for money?

    Having watched the High Court Sherrifs Id get looking for receipts for anything you own.
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 10th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    • 2,237 Posts
    • 3,010 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    Some insurers now have multiple classes of insurance. Admiral for example have something like the old "social, domestic and pleasure" category which for other insurers in previous years included commuting to your place of work but not business mileage but with Admiral specifically excludes commuting. Commuting is the next category up, with Business 1 and Business 2 being further levels of business cover. It sounds like your son either didn't make it clear what he would be using the car for and/or didn't read his policy documents. As Andy says, it should be quite clear on his policy schedule and/or certificate and the various levels will be explained in the policy booklet.
    • gord115
    • By gord115 10th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    • 860 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    gord115
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    The certificate says "social domestic and pleasure ex commuting"
    so he wasn't covered.
    Other forums seem to think they will pay out for the other guy but not for my sons car.
    They also seem to think it is unlikely they will pursue him for the costs.
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 10th Apr 18, 7:40 PM
    • 2,237 Posts
    • 3,010 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:40 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:40 PM
    An expensive mistake I'm afraid. The only thing to do is to ask the insurer what the consequences are. I hope for his sake that they don't cancel the policy because that will cause a lot more hassle and expense for years to come, on top of the costs of repairing his car and higher premiums through having made a claim. Insurers will always ask if a policy has been cancelled and some will not insure people whose policy has been cancelled in the past and those that do tend to charge a premium.
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 10th Apr 18, 7:41 PM
    • 2,078 Posts
    • 1,258 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:41 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:41 PM
    The certificate says "social domestic and pleasure ex commuting"
    so he wasn't covered.
    Other forums seem to think they will pay out for the other guy but not for my sons car.
    They also seem to think it is unlikely they will pursue him for the costs.
    Originally posted by gord115
    Best stick to that forum as theyre telling you what you want to hear.

    Without knowning the company and costs involved no one can say. But why should others pay for his cost cutting? Hes lucky not to be getting six points and a 300 fine.
    • FutureGirl
    • By FutureGirl 10th Apr 18, 7:59 PM
    • 1,132 Posts
    • 473 Thanks
    FutureGirl
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:59 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:59 PM
    Your sons insurers will have an obligation under the Road Traffic Act to deal with the other drivers claim.

    They may / may not then pursue your son for the costs - they will likely do a financial background check to see the likelihood of your son being able to afford to pay them back.
    • Lorian
    • By Lorian 10th Apr 18, 8:01 PM
    • 4,461 Posts
    • 2,552 Thanks
    Lorian
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:01 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:01 PM
    Regular place of work?
    Who's the insurer?
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 10th Apr 18, 8:50 PM
    • 2,078 Posts
    • 1,258 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    Regular place of work?
    Originally posted by Lorian
    Doesnt matter.
    • GothicStirling
    • By GothicStirling 10th Apr 18, 9:05 PM
    • 1,072 Posts
    • 798 Thanks
    GothicStirling
    Up to the insurer's underwriters now. Similar thing happened to my sister, who was in a three car impact, as she drove to university. She didn't have commuting as she didn't realise going to university was classed as commuting (which is any journey you do regularly). The insurer did payout, but that could have been because the police said the whole incident was solely the fault of the first vehicle (which had cut in front of my sister at a junction).
    • Hermione Granger
    • By Hermione Granger 10th Apr 18, 9:31 PM
    • 866 Posts
    • 1,388 Thanks
    Hermione Granger
    Hes lucky not to be getting six points and a 300 fine.
    Originally posted by AndyMc.....
    six points and a 300 fine, what would that be for then?

    There was an insurance policy in force and even though it didn't cover the OP's son for commuting, the insurer is still legally obliged to provide third party cover under that policy.

    The OP's son was not driving without the minimum required insurance in place so there is no possibility of being prosecuted for no insurance.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 10th Apr 18, 9:51 PM
    • 3,192 Posts
    • 1,985 Thanks
    Car 54
    The law requires a policy to be in place covering that person's use of the vehicle. There wasn't, and specifically so. The fact that the insurer would pay out under a different piece of legislation is irrelevant. Guilty.
    • dacouch
    • By dacouch 10th Apr 18, 9:54 PM
    • 20,553 Posts
    • 12,730 Thanks
    dacouch
    six points and a 300 fine, what would that be for then?

    There was an insurance policy in force and even though it didn't cover the OP's son for commuting, the insurer is still legally obliged to provide third party cover under that policy.

    The OP's son was not driving without the minimum required insurance in place so there is no possibility of being prosecuted for no insurance.
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    The ops son is druving without insurance during this drive eg commuting.

    If the police were involved he would be banged to rights.
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 10th Apr 18, 10:00 PM
    • 2,078 Posts
    • 1,258 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    six points and a 300 fine, what would that be for then?

    There was an insurance policy in force and even though it didn't cover the OP's son for commuting, the insurer is still legally obliged to provide third party cover under that policy.

    The OP's son was not driving without the minimum required insurance in place so there is no possibility of being prosecuted for no insurance.
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    Are you sure?
    • Hermione Granger
    • By Hermione Granger 10th Apr 18, 11:12 PM
    • 866 Posts
    • 1,388 Thanks
    Hermione Granger
    Are you sure?
    Originally posted by AndyMc.....
    Yes.
    Even though you are driving outside of the permitted terms of your policy, the fact that there is still cover in place regarding third parties means that you are not driving without insurance.
    Your vehicle won't be covered but any third party damage or injuries will be.

    This is why on the bottom of your certificate of insurance is will state:
    Please note: For full details of the insurance cover, refer to your policy. Advice to third parties: Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
    It is advising a third party that they can still claim against your policy even if you are driving outside of what that certificate state you can do.
    • mattyprice4004
    • By mattyprice4004 10th Apr 18, 11:38 PM
    • 3,642 Posts
    • 3,120 Thanks
    mattyprice4004
    Before doubting the other party, remember that additional damage could have been discovered (or the bumper could have fallen off completely) - either which WOULD render the car undriveable.
    Likewise, 15mph is easily enough to give someone whiplash.

    It gets my goat when someone causes a crash due to not paying attention / not leaving a big enough gap, and then gets annoyed when the other party incurs additional costs.
    If your son had been driving properly, none of this would have happened.
    I'm sure your son inconvenienced the innocent party more than he's been inconvenienced.
    • dacouch
    • By dacouch 11th Apr 18, 12:18 AM
    • 20,553 Posts
    • 12,730 Thanks
    dacouch
    Yes.
    Even though you are driving outside of the permitted terms of your policy, the fact that there is still cover in place regarding third parties means that you are not driving without insurance.
    Your vehicle won't be covered but any third party damage or injuries will be.

    This is why on the bottom of your certificate of insurance is will state:

    It is advising a third party that they can still claim against your policy even if you are driving outside of what that certificate state you can do.
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    With all due respect you do not understand what you are talking about
    • gord115
    • By gord115 11th Apr 18, 6:25 AM
    • 860 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    gord115
    He is 21 and has been driving for 4 years without a ticket or accident. It seems a genuine mistake.
    He says he did the policy over the 'phone, declared all the mods he has done and that he uses the car for work.
    I believe him because if he was trying to get a cheaper quote he wouldn't have declared his mods.
    He admits it was his own fault he didn't check his policy though when it came through.

    He was calm after the crash (he rang us up and we went to him) and could have lied where he was going if he had known he had lied about using car for commuting.
    • marlot
    • By marlot 11th Apr 18, 6:55 AM
    • 3,580 Posts
    • 2,700 Thanks
    marlot
    Yes.
    Even though you are driving outside of the permitted terms of your policy, the fact that there is still cover in place regarding third parties means that you are not driving without insurance.....
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    This conflates two separate things.

    Third parties are allowed to claim from the insurance company. There was even a case a few years ago regarding a biker who sold his motorbike but didn't cancel the insurance. The purchaser didn't take out insurance of their own, so the seller's insurance had to step in and pay.
    http://www.visordown.com/news/general/biker-may-be-forced-to-pay-thousands-after-banned-new-owner-has-fatal-crash

    However, the driver can still be presecuted for driving outside the terms of their insurance. And their car seized. If you google you'll find numerous examples.
    Last edited by marlot; 11-04-2018 at 7:01 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

103Posts Today

1,447Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin