Insurance claim

[Deleted account DD]

Heres one for debate and im not at all sure of the correct answer.

My son was out and about in his car. He parked up and got out of the car. His mate got out of the passenger door and with the door hit and put a small dink in the car door next to him.

The cock who was parked next to him has gone straight to insurance company despite the fact it would be a £60 dentmaster job that i was going to sort. My sons mate is being a pratt about it so we have no conscience about dropping him in it.

Question is:

Is my son via his insurance company responsible?

The opposite arguments are that if it wasnt for the presence of his motor vehicle ie him and his car are repsonsible.

or

My son had no control over and gave no instruction or direction to his mate so its not his problem.

I really dont know the answer to this one and ive never been there before :naughty

any ideas or comments gratefully appreciated ( hes phoning the ins company tomorrow so we dont know their take on it yet)

:thumb2

[mowerman]

Just do what the bloke who hit my car whilst it was parked did..... dont report to your insurance company and when a claim is made by the other party (me) they just refuse to accept the accident happened !!!! Mind you my claim was £1500 worth of damage :(

Nearly 2 years and persued through the courts and still no joy :doh:doh:doh

As my company had my car repaired (am fully comp) they are now saying if the other insurance co dont pay up it will be a 'my fault' claim :eek:

guess it doesnt pay to be honest with a small knock, even though I was given all his details as it was a company vehicle (walkers crisp delivery truck) they refuse to pay cos the driver didnt report it to them !!!!

[makeitfit]

The cock has gone to who's insurance company?
I'd be inclined to say initially that your son was not responsible on his insurance.
Offer to pay the cock a sensible amount personally via letter (keep copy).
Get advice from your son's insurance company's legal dept.
You may also have third party liability cover on your house insurance. I did and had to use it when my son crashed his BMX into the back of a car :doh

[illy]

You haven't had an accident so no need to report it, don't offer him any money because that's admitting responsibility. I had something similar with a Parcel Line van, 2 weeks before it went to court they pulled out, bit more complicated than that but that's the short of it.

illy
PS only my opinion not professional

[solarman216]

lets look at it from the other side of the coin, you park up and some twat parks next to you, opens their door onto your pride and joy and marks the paint/small dent, what is your reaction, Rick

[fridgman]

Let the cock report it and wait to see what happens. Don't ring your insurance company as they will record the info and deem you as a greater risk (watchdog couple of weeks ago!!:eek:) equalling a premium hike!
From personal experience the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on but every case is different.

[lacroupade]

Interesting one but sadly I suspect your lad will be deemed responsible. I am assuming the cock was sat in his car when it happened?

Fact is, I believe the insurer will say that it was the drivers parking that potentially caused the door to be opened on to the other vehicle, irrespective of narrow spaces etc.. I suspect it would also depend though on how much space the cock had taken up.... if your lad were to be of the opinion that the other bloke had parked hard next to the edge of the space, thus impeding any later parkers access, then we can see it could go either way, i.e. it would end up being knock for knock, so the cock would have to take into account his own excess and any impact of a claim.

If however it was a 20-foot wide space, then clearly the passenger (but again ultimately the driver) was responsible for parking sufficiently close to pout the cocks car at risk.

So depending on the story I'd approach the cock and put that to him and suggest he might prefer a dentmaster repair to be funded for him.

There is also a school of thought that says let your lad learn a lesson but that helps nobody really.

Ultimately it boils down to the cock having your lad admit 100% liability (which he'd be a twat to do wouldn't he) so I'd suggest going down the "Mr Cock had parked very close to the edge of the parking space impeding access" route myself, thus ensuring it would be a knock for knock scenario and impacting Mr Cock...I mean Ricks not wrong, I'd be seriously pissed if some little twerp dinged my car door, but a bit of reason never goes amiss....

[Deleted account DD]

lets look at it from the other side of the coin, you park up and some twat parks next to you, opens their door onto your pride and joy and marks the paint/small dent, what is your reaction, Rick

Having been there i practised what I preach, invite them to get it sorted. Best option for both parties.

[Deleted account DD]

Well things are moving on. Cock reported it to his ins who contacted my sons ins who to say the least werent very sympathetic and the call centre idjit just read the script.

My sons (soon to be ex) friend is also being a pratt.

However my son has not and did not admit liability, he told his ins co that he didnt and they are passing that back to the other side along with , when we provide them, his friends details.

Still not sure if theres anything that says he as the insured driver is responsible.

[lacroupade]

Well things are moving on. Cock reported it to his ins who contacted my sons ins who to say the least werent very sympathetic and the call centre idjit just read the script.

My sons (soon to be ex) friend is also being a pratt.

However my son has not and did not admit liability, he told his ins co that he didnt and they are passing that back to the other side along with , when we provide them, his friends details.

Still not sure if theres anything that says he as the insured driver is responsible.

Think your last comment is probably right, unless the other bloke can prove he parked too close in which case it would definitely be his problem as the driver...there are plenty of such cases involving taxi drivers where the driver is found liable...but as expected, its panning out into one of those knock for knock jobbies which will simply whack both parties claims history, even if theres no payout, and the other bloke will suffer from his excess so will end up paying himself.

So not good news having his door dinted, but he should have been more reasonable.....

I don't actually think there are many anomalous scenarios where car insurance is concerned; its just like the scenario where somebody's drainpipe falls on your car. Simple insurance matter, but its yours sadly!

[Kamsin]

Simple insurance matter, but its yours sadly!

Sadly this is correct. your son is responsible as he was in charge of the vehicle at the time. If his mate had got out and kicked the door then it would be down to him.
As the owner and driver at the time its all down to your son. Also the other driver was correct in going to the insurance as all accidents should be reported, you can offer to deal with it your self to avoid yours being involved, but to many times i have heard of people doing this and then getting ripped off by the other party then denying it at a later date.

I sugest he gets better friends as if it was me i would of offerd to pay for it myself and not let my mate (The car owner) suffer for my acctions. IMHO

[Deleted account DD]

My research suggests that Mike (my lad) is going to have to cough up but ive told him I'll fund him to pursue his (ex) friend for all dosh and believe me Im a vindictive bastard once i get after someone ;)

There still remains the argument that my son had no control or influence over what his mate did. Seeking advice next week ;)

[Liam]

My research suggests that Mike (my lad) is going to have to cough up but ive told him I'll fund him to pursue his (ex) friend for all dosh and believe me Im a vindictive bastard once i get after someone ;)

There still remains the argument that my son had no control or influence over what his mate did. Seeking advice next week ;)

Ok, so your son stops to let a passenger out of his car, passenger opens the door and knocks a cyclist, old lady, small boy to the ground. Seems straightforward, the law makes the insured person liable for the vehicle, it's contents and any bits that might fall off during use AND it's occupants. Responsibility for doors being safely opened lies with the insured/driver, simples. Wouldn't even bother seeking advice as if it possible to pin blame on a person who is not responsible for the vehicle, it opens up all kinds of horrible possibilities.

[Deleted account DD]

Wouldn't even bother seeking advice as if it possible to pin blame on a person who is not responsible for the vehicle, it opens up all kinds of horrible possibilities.

What legislation covers that? (serious question) other than "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle" which is not specific enough in this case.
I ask that because im sure youre wrong there ;) I recall a youth who slammed the handbrake on in his mates car being held entirely liable for all aspects of the incident that followed. Both costs and prosecution.

The basis as i recall is as ive stated earlier, he was not under any control, duress, instruction or advice of the insured. Was and acted independently outside of what the insured could reasonably have been expected to control.

My question is based around process that I cannot recall from that incident. Put in context does Mike pay up as the insured owner of the vehicle then pursue his ex mate for costs recovery or does Mike duck out of it and the 3rd party chases his ex mate directly.

The insurance company have already accepted Mike not accepting liability but the problem is he couldn't remember the nuances of his conversation with them :doh

Advice is no problem, good mate, trained/qualified letters after name type Insurance inspector boy and man 40 years plus with a real company ie not a call centre prompt reader :thumb2 problem is hes on holiday at the mo arrgghhhhh.

[Deleted account DD]

it opens up all kinds of horrible possibilities.


such as?

[lacroupade]

This will all come out in the wash, but someone deliberately slamming the handbrake on is not an accident for a start is it. Secondly, although I can see that the handbrake youth would ultimately be liable, if the car hit another vehicle (which I assume it did) the other parties right of action would always be against the cars insurer (who may well then have recovered their costs from the feckless youth, but thats nothing to do with the claiming driver, he's not required to sort out a legal dispute within the other vehicle).

There are always subsequent courses of legal action for insurers or even drivers to recover costs, but the whole point of an insurance policy is that it simplifies things for other drivers and is the primary point of claim.

I mean if you took your theory to the nth degree an aggrieved driver could, instead of a straightforward claim on the other parties insurance, be required to sue the wasp that stung the other driver, or the council that didn't grit the icy road, or the God that caused a thunderstorm to wet the road and cause a skid, etc..etc..

If you Google it a bit (and I'm sure you have) there are loads of examples where taxi drivers have been held liable for damage caused by people opening doors on to other vehicles.

Part of the answer to this question may lie in the fact that the insurance primarily attaches to the vehicle FIRST and THEN the driver, so any damage caused by that vehicle, however caused, is covered by the insurance.....which is the whole point, for the rest of the population, of enforcing vehicle insurance as a legal requirement - it avoids anyone being out of pocket through no fault of their own. In this case it was the car that actually did the damage, not a youth with a screwdriver.....

[Deleted account DD]

Paul, the handbrake and the door are actually the same in principal on the simple premis that "due to the presence of a motor vehicle" xxx"occured".

If you can sue a wasp , go for it :thumb2 but on those lines just out of interest I am personally aquainted with more than one individual who did get their claims settled by the local auth who could not demonstrate that a key route (emergency services) had been maintained (ie gritted) as per some agreement and they failed in their duty of care. That was boxing day 1999 on sheet ice Ladgate lane Middlesbrough, it was like a skating rink. Settled out of court and the ip's insurance recorded the incidents for info with no loss or loading :thumb2

The conclusion of extensive research is that the insured is usually (not always) responsible for reparation but responsibility for the damage is the person who caused it. Furthermore theres some hot debate as to whether dinking a door is an "accident" or damage caused by negligence. If its damaged caused by carelessness or negligence the person committing it ( similar to criminal damage) is entirely responsible. Im afraid the convenience of an IP on this occasion comes a very poor second.

People get confused over responsibility of insurers ie they cough up and the obligation of the insured to notify of their involvement in an incident of any kind :thumb2

Ultimately costs CAN be recovered in full from his ex friend. Im just keen to avoid Mike having a fault claim on his record if possible.

Its fine for folk to say "dont bother seeking advice" but when the costs of having the claim against him will ultimately run into thousands because of one complete ****** and an impatient cock I will fight tooth and nail to achieve that.

[Deleted account DD]

Another interesting point on the taxi door examples, they come under slightly different terms and conditions at times. In connection with carrying passengers they have certain contractural obligations. Not sure how that affects liability of passengers actions but it does :naughty

[lacroupade]

Paul, the handbrake and the door are actually the same in principal on the simple premis that "due to the presence of a motor vehicle" xxx"occured".

If you can sue a wasp , go for it :thumb2 but on those lines just out of interest I am personally aquainted with more than one individual who did get their claims settled by the local auth who could not demonstrate that a key route (emergency services) had been maintained (ie gritted) as per some agreement and they failed in their duty of care. That was boxing day 1999 on sheet ice Ladgate lane Middlesbrough, it was like a skating rink. Settled out of court and the ip's insurance recorded the incidents for info with no loss or loading :thumb2

The conclusion of extensive research is that the insured is usually (not always) responsible for reparation but responsibility for the damage is the person who caused it. Furthermore theres some hot debate as to whether dinking a door is an "accident" or damage caused by negligence. If its damaged caused by carelessness or negligence the person committing it ( similar to criminal damage) is entirely responsible. Im afraid the convenience of an IP on this occasion comes a very poor second.

People get confused over responsibility of insurers ie they cough up and the obligation of the insured to notify of their involvement in an incident of any kind :thumb2

Ultimately costs CAN be recovered in full from his ex friend. Im just keen to avoid Mike having a fault claim on his record if possible.

Its fine for folk to say "dont bother seeking advice" but when the costs of having the claim against him will ultimately run into thousands because of one complete ****** and an impatient cock I will fight tooth and nail to achieve that.


I don't disagree at all Dave, there are frequently routes by which the claimant can get reparation via routes other than insurance, but they are never guaranteed (e.g. a pothole that hasn't been reported) so its always best to go the insurance route. Equally the insurer has the same options in law after paying its client (e.g. recovering from local council re a known reported pothole causing damage), but doesn't always choose to pursue them.

All I'm saying is, the whole reason the government makes vehicle insurance a legal requirement is to give any aggrieved party a primary route to compensation.

I mean say you skidded on an ungritted road and crashed. Putting aside the no-claims issues, why would you waste weeks, possibly months, pursuing the local authority through the courts for compensation, when one call to your insurer sorts the whole thing out quickly....

Going back to the handbrake thing, doesn't really matter what anyone did in the car, the other parties immediate right of action is against the car (and, as a secondary issue only, the driver). Yes he could pursue the passenger if he wanted to but why bother when theres no need? The insurance company paying out may well then pursue the passenger to cover its losses, but if he is a 'man of straw' whats the point?

I think from any legal perspective, with the right representation, your lad would get whitewashed. My basic argument would be, had he not been friends with a divvy, AND also let that divvy travel in his car, AND parked that car next to the claimant, the claimants door would never have been dented. In that context all roads lead to Mikey......the fact he may not have realised the bloke was a divvy is a moot point....whichever way you look at it, had it not been for Mike, the accident would not have occurred......

I love a good mass debate......:)

[Deleted account DD]

I mean say you skidded on an ungritted road and crashed. Putting aside the no-claims issues, why would you waste weeks, possibly months, pursuing the local authority through the courts for compensation, when one call to your insurer sorts the whole thing out quickly....

was settled by mid Jan 2000 and payout by the end, just over 3 weeks. ;)



I love a good mass debate......:)

There isnt one really, his pratt of a friend is entirely liable. The only point to be established is the fastest , cheapest and easiest route to sort it. That is often definitely not via the Ins company:thumb2

[(RIP) PLANK]

I have come to this late but you could offer to pay and have it fixed directly (via chips away or whoever as you say) when the insurance company get in touch tell them you have offered to pay and that he has refused (if he has)
This happened to a friend of mine recently and as the other party had refused his offer his insurance did not persue the claim.

but do remember i'm not a proper lawyer :doh

[Deleted account DD]

This happened to a friend of mine recently and as the other party had refused his offer his insurance did not persue the claim.



Thats very interesting, thanks :thumb2

[ocelot]

was the car park council or private land? ie, supermarket car park, there is a distinction in law..........
access rights don't always confer legal status to sue for insurance claims unless personal loss or injury over a certain threshold..........

[Liam]

such as?

Such as somebody throwing something from the vehicle and hitting somebody, passenger opening door when unsafe. Ultimately, from what I have knowledge of and have heard, the driver/insured person is responsible for anything that is the subject of an insurance claim. Isn't it the case that if I was driving your car with your consent and under your policy, and had an accident, the insurance company are less interested in me because it is your name on the policy, they may come after me for some costs but ultimately , it is you who will suffer, even though you could not be responsible for my actions while driving. Of course, in the event of something similar to your son's case, obviously if the insurance pay up to the injured party, they or your son can pursue the individual actually responsible, i.e. your son's mate. Think of it like a three car pile up, the person you hit claims from you, although you were shoved from behind, so you claim from the guy who hit you for your damage and also the cost of repairing the car belong to the guy in front. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Deleted account DD]

Such as somebody throwing something from the vehicle and hitting somebody

definitely absolutely not the driver or the insurance. Youth squirts water from bottle then throws bottle at ip from within car causing injury. Youth arrested NOT the responsibility of the driver or their insurance. Dealt with that one myself.

passenger opening door when unsafe.

Person opening door is responsible and can be pursued for all costs, irrespective if where payment to ip originates from. As ive said earlier I just want the quickest easiest way to do just that.


point i'm making here is its not always as clear as the first snapshot view suggests :thumb2

[Deleted account DD]

was the car park council or private land? ie, supermarket car park, there is a distinction in law..........
access rights don't always confer legal status to sue for insurance claims unless personal loss or injury over a certain threshold..........

absolutely correct as i understand it too :thumb2

it was a private car park, entry by permission (implied or direct ) or payment of fee.

[lacroupade]

absolutely correct as i understand it too :thumb2

it was a private car park, entry by permission (implied or direct ) or payment of fee.

Oh come on, not that old wives tale again....

So when your car gets nicked off your private driveway, or from your private garage, you expect not to be claiming for it then?

And in any event, most private car parks will have a notice disclaiming responsibility for anything, which you accept as a condition of parking there.

:):):)

[felixthelogchopper]

Surely the passenger has his own duty of care to not cause damage to your son's vehicle or any other vehicle and, in hitting the other car with the door of your son's car, has been negligent in that duty of care? If the passenger had been standing in the street independent of your son's vehicle and dented the other vehicle in some way then he would be liable to pay for the damage.

[BIGSEAN]

The law regarding car parks was changed several years ago regarding this sort of thing, your point has no relevence now.

[Deleted account DD]

Oh come on, not that old wives tale again....

So when your car gets nicked off your private driveway, or from your private garage, you expect not to be claiming for it then?

And in any event, most private car parks will have a notice disclaiming responsibility for anything, which you accept as a condition of parking there.

:):):)

youll find (and im out of date so its no doubt been amended again) that only a few years ago that was not an old wives tale. Only some elements of the road traffic act which included insurance matters were applicable to incidents that occurred in a private car park.

For example I could not stick you on for no insurance in Tescos car park. I had to wait and observe you drive in or out on the public road. Presence in the car park did not (and does not) imply you have driven there.

I have seen custody refused on a sect 4rta driver who was locked up in a car park.

the theft comparison is and always has been completely irrelevant in this context as it is not subject to the road traffic act.

In fact for definite when I did my basic traffic law which wasn't that long ago about the only time you could nick someone in a private car park was certain elements of an rtc or pursuing someone for a road traffic offence. (no doubt there were others I cant recall :D)

The only old wives tale is that his wasnt the case ....fact ;)

No ones suggesting that the car park owners are responsible in any way. The disclaimer is part of the conditions of entry same as searching upon entering a footie ground etc etc

[Deleted account DD]

The law regarding car parks was changed several years ago regarding this sort of thing, your point has no relevence now.

it was ammended but not to cover all unadopted roads and areas as public highway. Not sure to what extent it does/did do but the point was a very good one.

[Deleted account DD]

Surely the passenger has his own duty of care to not cause damage to your son's vehicle or any other vehicle and, in hitting the other car with the door of your son's car, has been negligent in that duty of care? If the passenger had been standing in the street independent of your son's vehicle and dented the other vehicle in some way then he would be liable to pay for the damage.


As always , spot on, that is exactly what we've been told :thumb2

[Terranoman]

I would say your son has a duty of care to position the vehicle in a manner that any passenger can exit without injury or damage and should a obstetrical be in the the way point this out to such passengers.:nenau

Like I say to the kids as they exit in a car park "watch the other cars" having said that they are only 10 years old.

However if you can pass the claim on try it!

[lacroupade]

youll find (and im out of date so its no doubt been amended again) that only a few years ago that was not an old wives tale. Only some elements of the road traffic act which included insurance matters were applicable to incidents that occurred in a private car park.

For example I could not stick you on for no insurance in Tescos car park. I had to wait and observe you drive in or out on the public road. Presence in the car park did not (and does not) imply you have driven there.

I have seen custody refused on a sect 4rta driver who was locked up in a car park.

the theft comparison is and always has been completely irrelevant in this context as it is not subject to the road traffic act.

In fact for definite when I did my basic traffic law which wasn't that long ago about the only time you could nick someone in a private car park was certain elements of an rtc or pursuing someone for a road traffic offence. (no doubt there were others I cant recall :D)

The only old wives tale is that his wasnt the case ....fact ;)

No ones suggesting that the car park owners are responsible in any way. The disclaimer is part of the conditions of entry same as searching upon entering a footie ground etc etc

LOL you kill me, all that to admit that I'm right! Never mind telling me how it USED to be, that ISN'T how it is now is it, as you have carefully explained. PLUS you've argued the point like a woman, take and twist bit 180 degrees:doh - I was talking specifically about insurance, not legal niceties about how the RT Act might not apply on a Wednesday in a wet pub skittle alley - and in that context your vehicle insurance is valid whenever and wherever it might be, except for specific exclusions like offroading or hire and reward.....even then, I suspect it still has to provide third party cover.....you're sounding more like my missus every day LMAO! :lol

And re your last point to FTLC, again you are not wrong, but it ignores the fact that, as an innocent party who's door got dented by another vehicle, my primary point of claim is against that vehicles insurers is it not? Yes there are other avenues but I'm not obligated to pursue them.....

[Deleted account DD]

lets get a few things straight here. Your last post is a crock of shite. Not quite sure what youre rambling on about being right or wrong There ARE different rules for car parks. Im just big enough to admit i dont know what they all are.

What I said if you bother reading it properly is that I am not bang up to date but i know for a fact you are completely wrong to dismiss the nuances out of hand.

Differences do still apply.

At no point has it been completely dismissed that the insured is the spoc, in fact if you read wayyyyyyyy back my question is how we reclaim from the person ultimately responsible, simple answer is of course we can.

You are 100% wrong that its an old wives tale. Never was and isnt, thats why prosecutions fall through and tickets are rescinded.

[Deleted account DD]

cant be asrsed to argue it because there isnt an argument.

Do a bit of research.

If the RTA does not require ins , use of it can not be enforced. Fact.

It becomes a civil claim and the PERSON pursued

Such nuances do apply to car parks. Fact.

Where youve got mixed up and enter self congratulatory mode is where you miss the point where i say i dont know what still does and doesnt apply.

Certainly wasnt and isnt an old wives tale. Fact.

[Deleted account DD]

ahhhhh.......................posted both due to running out of time updating . repeats a bit but both posts correct.

[Deleted account DD]

I would say your son has a duty of care to position the vehicle in a manner that any passenger can exit without injury or damage and should a obstetrical be in the the way point this out to such passengers.:nenau


He did :thumb2

[TONUP]

and this is why insurance companies employ lawyers...

Frankly I'm a bit shocked by the lack of empathy for the aggrieved party (Mr Cock, as you so eloquently call him).

Not sure what to do. What does yor Sons moral compass tell him?

Regards

Alan

[felixthelogchopper]

and this is why insurance companies employ lawyers...

Frankly I'm a bit shocked by the lack of empathy for the aggrieved party (Mr Cock, as you so eloquently call him).

Not sure what to do. What does yor Sons moral compass tell him?

Regards

Alan

I didn't think that DaveD's son intends that the aggrieved party should be left out of pocket. The question is more who should pay for the damage. I would think the other driver has earned the title of Mr Cock due to his behaviour which is to say the least difficult and calculated to cause maximum trouble over a very minor incident.

[lacroupade]

cant be asrsed to argue it because there isnt an argument.

Do a bit of research.

If the RTA does not require ins , use of it can not be enforced. Fact.

It becomes a civil claim and the PERSON pursued

Such nuances do apply to car parks. Fact.

Where youve got mixed up and enter self congratulatory mode is where you miss the point where i say i dont know what still does and doesnt apply.

Certainly wasnt and isnt an old wives tale. Fact.

what a girlie conclusion ...you've clearly had too much Lucozade haven't you :lol:lol:lol

anyway I think you'll find if you check PROPERLY (:lol)that any private land that the public have access to i.e. a car park, is regarded as the same as the public highway with regards to insurance etc. In other words Mr Cock was perfectly at liberty to take the course of action he did. We are not talking about the law here, I never was, simply insurance procedures and processes.

Thats my position and unless someone can provide irrefutable documented professional evidence to the contrary, then it stands ....yahboosuckstoyou ...withknobson. :kissy:kissy:kissy