Accident driving a car with third party insurance

[GH421]

My wife was driving my mothers car (she has fully comp therefore allowing her to drive any other car) and she was cut up by a BMW from the middle lane into the first hitting her car in the process. The police were called and the highways agency attended the scene. Luckily there were no injuries.

The damage sustained was on the offside wing and bumper.

As she is third party her insurance company have been notified but will not be able to put in a claim for the damage due to her driving another car.

The BMW in question was a Thrifty rental car and the driver refuses to claim liability for the accident. Rather than dealing with Thrifty's insurance directly as I have read this is a long winded process are there companies out there who can deal with this on her behalf?

 

[NDFR]

Does the BMW river have to claim anything? If you have his details can you not make a claim against his insurers directly?

 

[renault12ts]

The difficulty is the BMW driver is not accepting responsibility...so the insurers will not be inclined to pay the third party.

 

[tali]

The BMW driver is within his rights to refuse to claim liability - and anyway what he thinks is totally irrelevant anyway - only the insurers can decide liability.
I would ,at this stage, deal with Thrifty directly -who told you it is a long winded process?

 

[219]

Notwithstanding TPO cover , your insurer should still pursue the other party for your loss ; TPO just means that your insurer won't cover damage to your own vehicle , but they should still pursue a claim against the other driver or , heaven forbid , settle a third party claim against you .

Does your wife's insurance include legal assistance ? This should still be available , regardless that she was using the DOC element of her cover .

It would still be worth notifying Thrifty of the incident , and that you hold their driver responsible for the damage to your vehicle - they may , on sight of the facts , settle with you and pursue their hirer for the damages . You have nothing to lose by trying .

 

[TDE1]

Not strictly true, I think. Wife's insurers will have incurred no loss as the damage is uninsured. Therefore they will have no financial interest in attempting a claim.

Agree with exploring the legal expenses cover avenue, as this is specifically designed to cover uninsured losses, but it may be vehicle-specific.

 

[Dryce]

The BMW driver is within his rights to refuse to claim liability - and anyway what he thinks is totally irrelevant anyway - only the insurers can decide liability.

To be pedantic.

It's courts that ultimately decide liability.

But insurers generally *settle* claims before they get that far.

 

[DSM10000]

My wife was driving my mothers car (she has fully comp therefore allowing her to drive any other car)

I am sure it is not the case here but having comprehensive cover does not automatically give the policy holder third party cover to drive other vehicles.

Some Insurance companies now specifically exclude this in the terms and conditions, it used to be common to provide third party cover with such policies but this is not something anyone should take for granted without examining your policy details closely.

Another area where people have been caught out when using a comprehensive policy that does provide third party cover is that the vehicle driven must also have an existing policy in place before you can legally drive it.

 

[Meldrew2]

Surely the "no win no fee" lawyer who is handling your wife's whiplash claim will deal with it... What do you mean, no whiplash? No loss of earnings? No shock?

Not that I am making a suggestion...

 

[219]

I am sure it is not the case here but having comprehensive cover does not automatically give the policy holder third party cover to drive other vehicles.

Some Insurance companies now specifically exclude this in the terms and conditions, it used to be common to provide third party cover with such policies but this is not something anyone should take for granted without examining your policy details closely.

Another area where people have been caught out when using a comprehensive policy that does provide third party cover is that the vehicle driven must also have an existing policy in place before you can legally drive it.

Regarding the last paragraph , it depends on the wording of the individual policy , some insurers do require that the other vehicle is already insured , but not all do - it is vital to read the small print , and if the documents are silent on that matter then they cannot exclude cover on that basis .

 

[219]

Not strictly true, I think. Wife's insurers will have incurred no loss as the damage is uninsured. Therefore they will have no financial interest in attempting a claim.

Agree with exploring the legal expenses cover avenue, as this is specifically designed to cover uninsured losses, but it may be vehicle-specific.

Although they will not insure against damage to the vehicle being driven , the OP's wife was driving under their policy , with them covering third party claims , therefore it is in their interest to act on her behalf , lest the third party initiates a claim against her , which they would be bound to indemnify her against . Moreover , although her insurers won't cover her own damage , they can act to recover damage from the other side .

The last option would be for the vehicle owner ( the wife's mother ) to raise a claim through her own insurer against her daughter for the damage done to HER car whilst in her daughter's care ; this could be viewed as a third party claim and might be covered as such by the daughter's insurer ...

Ideally though they should go after the Thrifty driver , especially if the police report concludes he was at fault .

 

[DSM10000]

Regarding the last paragraph , it depends on the wording of the individual policy , some insurers do require that the other vehicle is already insured , but not all do - it is vital to read the small print , and if the documents are silent on that matter then they cannot exclude cover on that basis .

I think that this is a requirement of law and not at the whim of the insurance companies?

Was this not covered under the Continuous Insurance Law of 2011 as all vehicles must be insured unless kept off road under SORN?

 

[219]

You are correct about CIS and SORN ; however if a friend , for example , purchased a car on a Sunday and was unable to arrange cover that day , you ( not being the owner ) could drive the otherwise legal car home for him with his permission .

Equally , a SORN , but uninsured car could be taken for a pre arranged MOT by a friend who could drive it on his own insurance .

There are a few circumstances where it could work .

 

[Rory]

Notwithstanding TPO cover , your insurer should still pursue the other party for your loss ;

I agree with others - they won't as they have no interest.

However, many insurance companies now farm out claims handling to Accident Management Companies (AMC's). If the insurer is one that does, they'll be only to pleased to refer you to their pet AMC.

 

[Dryce]

therefore it is in their interest to act on her behalf

Nope.

Not unless / until ......

lest the third party initiates a claim against her ,

At this point it becomes an obligation to act.

Even if you are covered because it is your own vehicle - insurers will normally be quite happy to step aside and let you chase a no-fault claim against a 3rd party either personally or through an accident management company.

 

[Dryce]

I think that this is a requirement of law and not at the whim of the insurance companies?

Both. ISTR it being on policies in the past - that the cover was subject to you not owning or hiring the car and that it was covered under its own insurance.

It's always worth checking the details in the policy as the TP cover on another vehicle isn't awlays provided and the exact conditions may vary a bit.

It's also worth checking the askmid database if intending to drive someones else's car to make sure of its insurance status.

 

[markjay]

It differs. I seem rememberer that some insurers in fact changed the terms so that it only covers 'in an emergency' - e.g. the driver has fallen ill etc - but not for regular journeys. My insurance does not have that clause, but as others said this needs to be checks specifically for the policy in question rather than assume it is the same for all.