Car Accident Issue

DMC - how, if at all, does the car being unoccupied or the policyholder/named driver not even being anywhere near the car at the time, affect the insurance?

(I realise your not an insurance specialist per se, but in your job you're probably the nearest thing to it on this thread).

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

DMC - how, if at all, does the car being unoccupied or the policyholder/named driver not even being anywhere near the car at the time, affect the insurance?

(I realise your not an insurance specialist per se, but in your job you're probably the nearest thing to it on this thread).

Affect the insurance in what way Ralph? A motor insurance policy will cover a vehicle when unattended.

I think the general misunderstanding on this thread is in relation to claiming from someone else's policy. You would be claiming from the Thiird Party section (or Motor Liability) section of their policy. This covers the owner/driver against injury/damage caused by their negligence, in the same way a Public Lability or Employers Liability policy covers companies against damage to members of the public or employees.

In simple terms, the person making the claim has to demonstrate the person being claimed against is liable for the damage.

In the op, the blue car was pushed into the grey car whilst unattended. The driver of the blue car was not there, and assuming the hand brake was on, there was nothing she could have done to prevent or avoid the accident. she has not been negligent and is not liable for the damage to the grey car.

Her insurance will ony pay for the damage to the grey car if she is liable for causing it.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by DMC

Affect the insurance in what way Ralph? A motor insurance policy will cover a vehicle when unattended.

I think the general misunderstanding on this thread is in relation to claiming from someone else's policy. You would be claiming from the Thiird Party section (or Motor Liability) section of their policy. This covers the owner/driver against injury/damage caused by their negligence, in the same way a Public Lability or Employers Liability policy covers companies against damage to members of the public or employees.

In simple terms, the person making the claim has to demonstrate the person being claimed against is liable for the damage.

In the op, the blue car was pushed into the grey car whilst unattended. The driver of the blue car was not there, and assuming the hand brake was on, there was nothing she could have done to prevent or avoid the accident. she has not been negligent and is not liable for the damage to the grey car.

Her insurance will ony pay for the damage to the grey car if she is liable for causing it.

You would hope so.

Thing is, "At Fault" doesn't mean what you would think it does.

My insurance company admitted that I was not at fault, however as my vehicle had caused damage to another vehicle then my policy was liable.

Had I the details of the cyclist who caused it all then it would have all fallen on him, but as there was no-where to pass the buck to...

Unfortunately insurance in this country doesn't work on a no-blame basis, it works on a no-claim one instead. There have been plenty of instances of people having claims against them when it has clearly not been their fault an accident has occurred.

Theft claims are another instance where the owner has not been negligent, but still gets stiffed for making a claim against their insurance company.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by DMC

The RTA 1988 applies to any road or public place, therefore there is no difference between the highway and a public car park as far as Insurance cover is concerned.

In terms of your situation Fizz, I'm assuming that was a simple 3 vehicle shunt, where the rear vehicle accepted responsibility? If hat were the case, it would be normal for the Insurers of the rear vehicle to deal with any damage caused to the other vehicles. However, it is not uncommon with multi vehicle shunts for drivers to say, for example, "that the 3 cars in front had already collided before I hit the rear". In those circumstances it is difficult to establish which drivers were responsible for what damage. Witness evidence is often inconclusive and he Insurance companies will often come to some sort of agreement to carve up any Claimants damages.

You've got to be aware that insurance companies employ a lot of inexperienced staff, it is not uncommon for claims to be handled incorrectly. However, a claim for an accident, whether it be motor, in the street, or at work, must be based on liability. The person making the claim has to allege why fault against the person they are claiming against. The fact the blue car hit the grey car doesn't mean that the owner of the blue car is liable. If the hand break had been left off, then there are arguments for them being liable, but if the simple facts are that the car was parked and properly secured their vehicle, and it was pushed into another by someone else, then the owner of the blue car will not be liable. They had taken all reasonable precaution to prevent such an occurrence!

^This

Originally Posted by DMC

Affect the insurance in what way Ralph? A motor insurance policy will cover a vehicle when unattended.

I think the general misunderstanding on this thread is in relation to claiming from someone else's policy. You would be claiming from the Thiird Party section (or Motor Liability) section of their policy. This covers the owner/driver against injury/damage caused by their negligence, in the same way a Public Lability or Employers Liability policy covers companies against damage to members of the public or employees.

In simple terms, the person making the claim has to demonstrate the person being claimed against is liable for the damage.

In the op, the blue car was pushed into the grey car whilst unattended. The driver of the blue car was not there, and assuming the hand brake was on, there was nothing she could have done to prevent or avoid the accident. she has not been negligent and is not liable for the damage to the grey car.

Her insurance will ony pay for the damage to the grey car if she is liable for causing it.

^ and this.

Forget about the insurance for a minute - what is it that makes the blue car responsible? If she parked properly and applied the handbrake on a well maintained vehicle then what did she do wrong? If we take the OP at face value then she hasn't been negligent.

There are some circumstances where you can be liable merely as owner of a vehicle even though you weren't in it, but this isn't one of them.

The grey car might try to recover against blue, but that witness means they should fail. In the absence of the witness they would probably succeed - so I hope that witnesses details have been taken.

If both cars are Comp I'd expect both insurers to repair their own damage - NCD affected for both. Although, as DMC said, you can't rule out the numpty factor so anything's possible.

If it hasn't been reported to the police, then do so. If there's any prospect of an MIB claim it needs to be reported in good time. MIB's not an easy answer though and really should be thought of as the last resort. If your car's insured or you can pay for repairs yourself, just get it fixed and carry on with your life.

Other examples given in the thread all involve the driver being in control of the vehicle so don't really help to judge a case like this. Multiple car shunts are all different and often none of the drivers can agree on what actually happened and who hit who in what order. Insurers just settle these on best terms and can come to all kinds of agreements on liability.

Just for the record, insurance companies don't make claims against the MIB.

Protected NCD isn't all it used to be but it's still better to have it than not.

HTH.

Originally Posted by DMC

Affect the insurance in what way Ralph? A motor insurance policy will cover a vehicle when unattended

I think you and Tam have answered it thanks mate.

The insurance covers the vehicle, i.e. if somebody belts it in a car park and you are not there, they drive off and you are fully comp = covered, they stop and leave a note and you are third party = covered (assuming they are insured, etc), they do a runner and you are third party = not covered.

The insurance cover for third party liability still covers the policy holder and the named drivers though, not the car. So if they have parked the vehicle diligently, but they are not there, then they can't be liable under their third party cover for anything that happens in their absence.

(?? pls correct if wrong)

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Unfortunately insurance in this country doesn't work on a no-blame basis, it works on a no-claim one instead. There have been plenty of instances of people having claims against them when it has clearly not been their fault an accident has occurred.

Your talking about NCD, not Insurance. Insurance the world over works the same!

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Theft claims are another instance where the owner has not been negligent, but still gets stiffed for making a claim against their insurance company.

This thread is talking about a claim against someone else's Liability Insurance. First party policies (such as covering theft) have nothing to do with negligence!

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

I think you and Tam have answered it thanks mate.

The insurance covers the vehicle, i.e. if somebody belts it in a car park and you are not there, they drive off and you are fully comp = covered, they stop and leave a note and you are third party = covered (assuming they are insured, etc), they do a runner and you are third party = not covered.

The insurance cover for third party liability still covers the policy holder and the named drivers though, not the car. So if they have parked the vehicle diligently, but they are not there, then they can't be liable under their third party cover for anything that happens in their absence.

(?? pls correct if wrong)

The type of insurance cover you have affects how your own vehicle is covered. Comp means that damage to your own car is covered. Third Party means that your own vehicle is not covered for its damage.

However, both have cover for Liability, it is a requirement under RTA. This means that if you/your car causes damage to someone/their property which you will be legally liable for, you will be covered.

Eg, if your handbrake is left off and your car rolls into another causing damage, you will be liable for that damage. Your handbrake should have been left on! But if something happens through which you have no control, then it is unlikely that you will be liable.

[ogden]

That's all lovely, but the simple fact is the blue car hit the grey one, not the red one, so the grey car claims from the red car. During the wrangling that follows, the red car may be found to be 100% liable, and the blue car 0%, but that's for the insurers to resolve between themselves.

All this "you weren't in the car, it's not your fault" is quite sweet, in a naive way, but doesn't reflect the reality of how the chain of claims will work.

Of course the right thing to do here is ask a solicitor, not a web forum.

Originally Posted by ogden

That's all lovely, but the simple fact is the blue car hit the grey one, not the red one, so the grey car claims from the red car. During the wrangling that follows, the red car may be found to be 100% liable, and the blue car 0%, but that's for the insurers to resolve between themselves.

All this "you weren't in the car, it's not your fault" is quite sweet, in a naive way, but doesn't reflect the reality of how the chain of claims will work.

Of course the right thing to do here is ask a solicitor, not a web forum.

This is a prime example of why you should not raise issues such as this on public forum. Naive to say the least and completely misleading to the op.