A question for our Insurance Supporters

[Mic]

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.

It may be how it works so far as the insurance industry is concerned but it is inequitable and deviates from the normal chain of who claims from who to the detriment of the totally innocent legally insured driver.
As Miffy, 3 should be claiming from 2 (wholly and completely.....a fully reimbursed no fault claim including excesses) and 2 claims with the MIB simply because 1 has done a runner which is unfortunate for 2 but should have no financial impact on 3.
The insurer's solution is without established logic.

Mic

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

But it does have logic - neither car 3 nor car 2 were at fault so why should car 2 pay the lot. If Miffy's mate was car 2 in your scenario he'd certainly have something to say about that.

Don't shoot the messenger. We were asked for our expert opinion on what would happen. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial.

 

[Miffy]

As chris has said, we don't agree with it, but that is how it works, and it fully explains the situation Racal found himself in.

 

[drmw]

It stinks, but then, so does the insurance industry. Can't be many sectors where subject to acknowledging the cartel, you are guaranteed business.

And change the rules to suit - 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."

Unless we decide otherwise.

 

[grober]

Its an interesting one- and does pose a vexing question-At what point is a car deemed to be "in play" so to speak. Supposing the driver other "parked " car that was pushed forward had been sitting in the car with the engine running ready to drive away or simply warming up the engine. Would that car status change to being "driven" ? which might technically change things? I make the distinction between "driver occupancy" and "stationary" since many rear end collisions occur at the back of stationary traffic queues

 

[Xtractorfan]

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.

Not entirely correct ChrisKnottIns.. a shunt where the driver collides with a parked car and then pushes that vehicle into another car .. both drivers claim off the guy who caused the damage.. liability is not in question..
You insurance brokers are responsible for giving out so much misinformation and causing soo much hassle and grief to motorists, because you take information and instructions from clerks with in the insurance companies and call centres .. No wonder Accident management companies have sprouted and made loads o money over the past few years...

 

[Gary Hanson]

From a legal point of view, rather than an insurance company claims handling procedure one, a driver who breaches a duty of care can be sued in the civil courts under the tort of negligence
The negligent driver (the one whose negligence caused the accident) is likely to be held liable by the court for the cost of repairs to other vehicles which were damaged in the accident, together with any personal injury compensation that might be involved. However, if that driver failed to stop, identify himself / herself, report the accident or exchange details, and in the absence of MIB involvement, it would be for the owners of the rest of the damaged vehicles to claim against their own insurance policies.

I know from my own experience of pursuing insurance claims on behalf of clients, that in practice, insurers sometimes act in their own interests by settling claims in such a way as to save themselves money, occasionally to the detriment of their own customers, but I won't bore you with examples as they're not strictly relevant here.