Car hit by drunk driver!

[GDAWG10]

Brother was stationary at a junction when a car speeding on the main road overran the turning and literally turned virtually head on into my brother's car. The driver was arrested for being three times over the drink driver limit and has since been charged and given a two year ban and community service.

Our insurers Direct Line have received the criminal prosecution letter, have spoken to a passenger in my brother's car who was also injured and a witness, yet they are still treating the claim as a "joint liability claim" which means we've already had to pay out for extra days on the courtesy car and the car repairers are now calling for the £600 excess to release the repaired car which Direct Line are saying we are going to pay and have to claim back?

1. It doesn't seem right it's still being treated as a joint liability claim a few weeks after the accident when the driver has pleaded guilty to drink driving

and

2. Subsequently, why are we continually being asked to pay out in the above situation!

 

[grober]

Has your brother got full comprehensive insurance? Has he got any legal cover or membership of any motoring organisation? Time to take specialist professional legal advice perhaps? It's possible your brother's insurance company are having difficulty in getting the uninsured losses from the other party's insurance- if he has any?

 

[GDAWG10]

Yes he's fully comp and the other driver is also insured. DL have appointed a law firm who are focusing on the usual "claim backs" i.e loss of work etc however both insurer's have said they are still investigating the incident which is odd when there is plenty of evidence, a criminal charge, police statements/records etc. The other driver has stated he cannot remember what happened which may be true because he was three times over the limit.

 

[joecash]

if he has money sue him - if he doesnt leave him be - you have up to 6 years i believe to pursue him in the civil courts should he come into money - but is it worth worying about as life is short enough?

 

[evdok]

Should have given him a good old thrashing & say he fell out the car.

 

[GDAWG10]

Not really interested in suing etc....he's already been charged, just don't see why there appears to be some sort of delay in deciding who's at fault when he's pleaded guilty.

One of the worst things was that he apparently said he was on the way to pick his kids up!

 

[didi w203]

So drinking and driving is acceptable by insurance company's???.... obviously they have proof driver was at fault due to negligence and undue care and attention and being in charge of a vehicle whilst intoxicated...insurance just don't want to pay out. . Crack in with further legal advice elsewhere...did I hear whiplash from your bro's mate???
bunch of tw@ts.

 

[didi w203]

I just remembered something someone told me. Im sure your bro can use a different solicitor to act on his behalf and they can use his legal cover. (Quick mention to insurance company and see if they squirm). When successful they reclaim all monies from other party and the policy remains as is. Hope it helps.

 

[Spin_bowler]

did I hear whiplash from your bro's mate???
bunch of tw@ts.

...and right here is where your advice is deemed worthless.

 

[didi w203]

@spin_bowler....Oh sorry good citizen who don't do nowt wrong in life...lol Well..if they are being awkward I'd give em hell.

 

[Spin_bowler]

Spurious or fraudulent insurance claims are a scourge on us all. No difference between gangs of crooks staging accidents on purpose and talking up a whiplash claim like you suggest in my opinion.

 

[didi w203]

Spurious or fraudulent insurance claims are a scourge on us all. No difference between gangs of crooks staging accidents on purpose and talking up a whiplash claim like you suggest in my opinion.

I know exactly what you mean...what was meant.....mention to the insurance company that there maybe a claim for injury. ...that might get them thinking and pull the finger out of their dark orifice.

 

[219]

The best thing in a case of this type would be to approach the other driver's insurer directly and ask them to settle directly with you , involving no claim against your own insurance and therefore no excess .

It sounds as though you are beyond this stage , perhaps the best tactic now would be to threaten to involve an accident management company .

 

[didi w203]

The best thing in a case of this type would be to approach the other driver's insurer directly and ask them to settle directly with you , involving no claim against your own insurance and therefore no excess .

It sounds as though you are beyond this stage , perhaps the best tactic now would be to threaten to involve an accident management company .

But will be noted on file even tho no claim would have been made and need to disclose this when applying for further car insurance I believe 5 years,some insurance company's go by 3 years fault or non fault.

 

[219]

Of course you still have to inform your own insurer , however by approaching the other insurer you give them the chance to settle directly , quickly and at minimal cost to them , without other parties taking a cut of the payout . It also means that you do not have to put out an excess then claim it back .

A lot of insurers , including Direct Line , now often contact other parties offering to pay if they realise that their insured is responsible for a collision .

In this case , I am tempted to wonder whether both drivers are insured with the same company ...

 

[219]

Spurious or fraudulent insurance claims are a scourge on us all. No difference between gangs of crooks staging accidents on purpose and talking up a whiplash claim like you suggest in my opinion.

For once , Nick and I are in complete agreement .

 

[markjay]

1. I am no insurance expert, but from past experience in such circumstances I dealt directly with the other party's insurance as Pontoneer said.

Firstly, while your own insurer has T&Cs, and things you are entitled to under your policy and things you are not... the other party's insurance in contrast is liable for each and every expense you may have incurred even including things such as cost of postage for sending them recorded post (I am serious).

Secondly you are fully entitled to a hire car of similar type and size at their expense for as long as it takes to settle the claim and repair your car.

For these reasons - again, in my experience - the other party's insurance would be in a great hurry to settle with you ASAP and before your own expenses escalate further (which would typically happen if you involve an accident management company).

You are correct in saying that you would still have to report the incident to your own insurer (as you have done), and that it may cause your premium to increase next year, but this is unavoidable in any case and unrelated to the above.




2. However, this only applies to 'open and shut' cases where the other party's liability is indisputable.

So, while I do not doubt your version of events, please also keep in mind that being drunk behind the wheel is an offence but it does not automatically mean full liability for an accident.

As an example, had your brother been found to be over the limit while behind the wheel, he would have been prosecuted as well - regardless of the accident being his fault or not.

So your insurer is not necessarily wrong in not simply accepting the other party's criminal conviction as proof of full liability for the accident.

Additionally, criminal cases are always one thing or the other, while in reality you could have a case - as the insurer seems to be claiming here - where the liability is indeed joint, though not in equal parts.

Again, this is just a general point to help you understand the insurer's point of view, and I am not passing any judgement on your brother's actions.

 

[boxbrownie]

Markjay is correct, this happened to me just before last Christmas, my car was in the company car park parked when a driver slid on ice and side swiped my car, he admitted liability right away of course and HIS insurance company contacted me and dealt with everything including a brand new ML350 for about four weeks over the Christmas period.
My company was of course informed and they said it was normal practice if the other party admitted liability and all was well. This is the one time the insurance companies actually seemed to work in my favour.

 

[didi w203]

I had a dispute where a bus hit my people carrier whilst parked and drove off. ...long story short. ..the other party's insurance weren't very helpful and took rather a long time to sort out a hire car. total 6 days. So me being me I rang insurers solicitors direct and told them 'I will go out and hire the most expensive car I can and put expenses on their account', hire car was delivered withthin 2 hours.

 

[GDAWG10]

The other driver is with Sun Alliance. A quick check suggests they are not part of the Direct Line Group although it appears they do have some sort of link. We spoke to the other parties insurance company and they basically said the same as our insurance i.e they are investigating and didn't offer to get involved directly.

The odd thing is if this is currently "joint liability", Direct Line recommended a law firm who are now in charge of claiming back uninsured losses. They have already arrange physiotherapy for my brother and the witness as they are still suffering with a few aches and pains i.e stiff necks etc.