A question for our Insurance Supporters

[Miffy]

At out GTG last weekend, one of our members was describing an accient his car was in and we were a little surprised at the outcome, could we have an official reply on how this sad state of affairs is correct and proper please.

His car was parked up, with another car parked in front along the road edge. A car was driven at speed, and crashed into the first car which when pushed back, hit our members car causing a fair bit of damage. The car that actually caused the first accident did a runner so there was nobody to lay the blame at for that, but the parked car that was hit and pushed back was fully insured but were not claimed against.

Our members car had to be repaired on his own insurance, with him paying his excess out of his pocket, and I believe subsequent loss of partial no claims discount.

Should his claim not be 100% against the parked car that actually hit him and caused the damage? It just seems wrong that he has been penalised for being parked in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[taxii]

I always thought it was the vehicle that made the contact that was claimed against as well. Will be interesting to hear the outcome of this. I might put the story on the consumer forum as well as a lot of legal people advise on there.

 

[drmw]

Hope springs eternal !!

 

[antijam]

Be interesting to hear a professional reply.

Perhaps it's akin to trying to sue the brick that someone has thrown through your window?

 

[taxii]

Be interesting to hear a professional reply.

Perhaps it's akin to trying to sue the brick that someone has thrown through your window?

If your in a three or more car shunt doesn't the one that hit you have to pay yours and then claim off the one that hit them thus pushing them into you?

 

[racall]

They said the car that was pushed into mine was also parked and he was not negligent. The beemer that caused it all done a runner there was one one to claim off.

 

[DanF]

I was rear-ended recently and pushed into the car in front. The car I was pushed into claimed directly off the guy behind me who caused the accident, as do I or rather as does my insurance company.

As it was a no fault claim I don't lose my no claims bonus. I was surprised though that my insurance company don't pay my excess, I have to claim that directly back from the offending driver's insurance company myself, even though it is a no fault claim. If I had ticked the right box when I took out the policy my insurance company would have instructed an 'uninsured loss solicitor' to claim back my excess on my behalf, but I didn't choose that option...

 

[Xtractorfan]

The first accident involved a parked car being smashed into another parked car.. None of the legally parked cars can be blamed as the fault lies with the Driver who caused the crash to both parked cars... The claim should be made to the MIB who pay out for non insured accidents or where a driver cannot be found..

 

[Xtractorfan]

I was rear-ended recently and pushed into the car in front. The car I was pushed into claimed directly off the guy behind me who caused the accident, as do I or rather as does my insurance company.

As it was a no fault claim I don't lose my no claims bonus. I was surprised though that my insurance company don't pay my excess, I have to claim that directly back from the offending driver's insurance company myself, even though it is a no fault claim. If I had ticked the right box when I took out the policy my insurance company would have instructed an 'uninsured loss solicitor' to claim back my excess on my behalf, but I didn't choose that option...

You should have claimed from the driver who caused your accident then they would have paid all of your claim including the excess ..your own insurance company will not pay your excess, so you have to then claim it yourself., a silly insurance self imposed rule that they cannot break.....

 

[Gkinghorn]

The OP noted the guy who hit the car scarpered so nobody to pursue....

 

[Rory]

Should his claim not be 100% against the parked car that actually hit him and caused the damage? It just seems wrong that he has been penalised for being parked in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Surely it would be just as wrong for the insurer of the other parked car to be stuffed with both sets of claims?

 

[Rory]

I was surprised though that my insurance company don't pay my excess,.

You need a better insurance company. LV= waived mine, and I didn't even use their authorised repairer.

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

I think you've come to the answer yourselves: as there's no-one else to go after it's not fair for the guy that was hit first to have to pay for his own repairs plus the second victim's. Normally the two insurance companies would agree to each pay for their own policyholder's repairs. The excess would still be payable. Had the offender hung around, moving along the shunt car 3 would claim off car 2 and car 2 would claim off car 1.

 

[Miffy]

would it not have been fairer for the first car hit to claim via the MIB and the final hit car to claim legitimately off the car that did in fact cause the damage to his car? arbitrary question I know but hey

Thanks for your reply tho

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

would it not have been fairer for the first car hit to claim via the MIB and the final hit car to claim legitimately off the car that did in fact cause the damage to his car? arbitrary question I know but hey

Thanks for your reply tho

The MIB's website states: "It is a requirement that the vehicle causing the damage must be identified as a condition of being able to claim for property damage." So unless someone got the reg number an MIB claim wouldn't be successful.

 

[racall]

Both my cars have seperate policys.C class with AF and Slk with Admiral

I informed admiral about the claim on the C class

Admiral said it shouldnt affect my renewal ncd on the Slk but noted there was a claim on the C class car.
But if i move from them i must declare ive had a claim fault or non fault in the last 5 years

I read this as i.ll have to stick with admiral for a while.

If you had a bump in say the firms van would you inform your car insurer.Food for thought!!!!

 

[Mic]

would it not have been fairer for the first car hit to claim via the MIB and the final hit car to claim legitimately off the car that did in fact cause the damage to his car? arbitrary question I know but hey

Thanks for your reply tho

I consider this to be the equitable resolution......these are clearly ''no fault'' claims and as such it should be incumbent upon the insurance industry to protect its customers under such circumstances from any and all costs including excesses and the risk of knock on premium hikes/loss of no claims bonuses.
The resolution effected and affirmed by Chris Knott is an example of the insurance industry failing to keep faith with its innocent clients and is another reason why the industry is held in such low regard.

Mic

 

[drmw]

The MIB's website states: "It is a requirement that the vehicle causing the damage must be identified as a condition of being able to claim for property damage." So unless someone got the reg number an MIB claim wouldn't be successful.

Pedantic I know - but that's the stuff of insurance policy wording - surely in this instance, the "vehicle causing the damage" was the car that was parked in front and as such, completely identifiable ?

 

[Gkinghorn]

If you had a bump in say the firms van would you inform your car insurer.Food for thought!!!!

if you don't and they find out and you make a claim you'll be uninsured!

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

As I said above, car 3 (the end vehicle) would claim off car 2 and car 2 would include those costs in it's own claim against car 1 (which in this case is unidentified) so the MIB couldn't pick up the claim. It's not fair for car 2 to foot the entire bill so each of the insurers agree to cover their own costs.

Whether you agree with it or not, that's how it works - sorry.