Crashed into an ambulance

[MOCAŠ]

I'd suggest that the insurers will pay out regardless. The negative press that could arise from a repudiation would probably convince them. Imagine the headline..
"One less ambulance due to XXXX Insurance smallprint"

It's not about the ambulance (which will be covered anyway), it's about the Golf.

EDIT: Ditto previous post

 

[TDE1]

Ah. Mea culpa...

 

[Dieselman]

Ah. Mea culpa...

Ah, Me slasha wrista...

 

[prprandall51]

It was all a long time ago, but I had an "accident" that resulted in me being charged with "Driving without due care and attention", which was a generous description of the circumstances. Anyway, the point is, I wrote off my car and the insurer paid without quibbling (they also paid for the lamp-post, fence and the cost of re-landscaping the garden of the old people's home).

 

[moonloops]

As mentioned previously, hope he has declared the modifications (bling wheels?)

Not only will they not pay for the golf, they can recover the cost for the ambulance repair or replacement. If he owns a house he could be saying bye-bye to that..

Wasn't there a well documented case a year or so ago involving a modded corsa?

 

[MOCAŠ]

It was all a long time ago, but I had an "accident" that resulted in me being charged with "Driving without due care and attention", which was a generous description of the circumstances. Anyway, the point is, I wrote off my car and the insurer paid without quibbling (they also paid for the lamp-post, fence and the cost of re-landscaping the garden of the old people's home).

A long time ago, insurers might have paid out if your car was stolen when you'd left your keys in the ignition. Not any more...

 

[grober]

Its a times like these you are thankful your insurance policy is underwritten by a bunch of Meerkats based in Gibraltar regulated by the FSC FSC - Commission run under the beady eye of the Gibraltar insurance commissioner = simples

http://www.willis.com/Documents/Pub...4/Captive_Management_Brochure_Gibraltar04.PDF

 

[Gucci]

Just putting my financial worse case scenario hat on... IF brother-in-law's insurance company refused to pay out, could he be liable for the FULL, albeit theoretical, damages sought by the ambulance's insurance company?

 

[grober]

After going through the insurance companies standard grievance/appeals procedure which will be detailed in your policy--- your next port of call would be the Insurance Ombudsman-- failing that the law.

 

[Stratman]

Just putting my financial worse case scenario hat on... IF brother-in-law's insurance company refused to pay out, could he be liable for the FULL, albeit theoretical, damages sought by the ambulance's insurance company?

Yes. The ambulance owner's beef is with the driver who damaged it. Where he gets the money from is up to him.

 

[Dieselman]

On every insurance policy it states that there is nothing in that policy that would stop a claim by a 3rd party as long as the policy is still in force. It's the law.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Yes. The ambulance owner's beef is with the driver who damaged it. Where he gets the money from is up to him.

I don't think there's any doubt that the insurers will pay out for the ambulance. The question is whether they will then seek to recover their losses from Gucci's brother-in-law, if they decide that he was in breach of the terms of his policy. That's a big "if", though...

What isn't in doubt is that insurers do seek to recover their losses from those they consider to be responsible, as I found out when a cyclist damaged the door of my car (mentioned on here at the time). Any notion that claims are simply covered by the premiums paid is somewhat wide of the mark.

 

[Dieselman]

How could the insurer seek redress from their policy holder. They have agreed to indemnify him from any claims from a 3rd party and indeed his own claim.

Why does everyone keep saying he has breached the terms of the policy?

 

[Dryce]

Just putting my financial worse case scenario hat on... IF brother-in-law's insurance company refused to pay out, could he be liable for the FULL, albeit theoretical, damages sought by the ambulance's insurance company?

In principle yes. But there's a big common sense practicality 'but'.

When you buy motor insurance you're basically paying the insurer to cover this and as such they take over the matter on your behalf - but behind it all you're the one actually responsible.

While you in principle buy insurance to cover the risk to yourself most people think only in the terms that they are required to have cover by law.

And the law insists you have it in order to cover risks to third parties. Which is one of the reasons standard motor insurance cover extends to acts of stupidity and negligence by the insured that wouldn't be covered by other types of insurance.

So in practice motor insurance policies - being setup to protect the third party - cover most driving situations. The problems tend to come about where the insured driver has lied or misrepresented themselves in some way in their application or acted in some specific way (eg. no MOT and not driving to a booked MOT test) that invalidates their policy.

It's highly unlikely (and unusual) if things are basically in order that your BiL would be left uncovered and therefore directly liable.

 

[Dryce]

What isn't in doubt is that insurers do seek to recover their losses from those they consider to be responsible, as I found out when a cyclist damaged the door of my car (mentioned on here at the time). Any notion that claims are simply covered by the premiums paid is somewhat wide of the mark.

There is a general principle that an insurer will cover their responsibilities to the insured and may go after any other party involved (and in effect their insurers if they are insured).

They don't go after their own client outwith the terms of the policy they have with that client.

 

[219]

There is also a general principle in insurance that one cannot be negligent towards oneself : so , even where you might do something very silly insurance will still generally pay out , as long as it cannot be shown to be a reckless or intentional act perpetrated for gain .

Thus , insurance would normally pay out in the following circumstances -

You accidentally set fire to your car when welding / shorted out the battery

You took a bend too fast and crashed


On the other hand they would not pay out if -

You 'torched' the car for the insurance payout and there was evidence of deliberate fire setting

You were racing on the public highway and there was evidence to prove this

You set up a 'crash for cash' scenario and were caught out .

 

[Borys]

Just add somehing
Last week twice nearly run into an ambulance and a police car.Next time will try to record what happend.To keep it simple.Big traffic towards a roundabout,ambulance in it.No reason turn the signals on and off he goes.There was no way for me to move,we nearly smashed side to side.As I was second to the traffic lights,followed ambulance to hospital.Ambulance was empty and staff from inside got outside talking to each other-no emergency????
For me it is over using authorities given,same for police (ending up in Mc Donalds)
Hope insurance will pay with no probs.
Good luck

 

[Gucci]

Quick update - insurance company paid in full the value of the car.

 

[MOCAŠ]

There is a general principle that an insurer will cover their responsibilities to the insured and may go after any other party involved (and in effect their insurers if they are insured).

They don't go after their own client outwith the terms of the policy they have with that client.

It's not quite that simple, though. In the case I referred to above, the driver's door of my car was damaged by a cyclist, who didn't have insurance. When I reported the accident to my insurers, they decided that I would need to claim under my own policy, which meant I had to pay the £600 excess. The cyclist reimbursed me for the excess, and I thought that would be that.

But ever since then (Sept 2009), I've been getting letters from my insurers telling me that they are pursing the cyclist for the full cost of the repairs (which was over £3000). They appointed a firm of laywers to recover this money from the cyclist, but this action was launched in my name. That is, the case was lodged with the county court as me (not my insrance company) v. the cyclist. This meant that I ended up dealing directly with the solicitors, and was legally responsible the fees they incurred. Their T&Cs stated that they would recover their fees under the Legal Expenses insurance provided by my motor insurance policy, but also carried the caveat that if their fees exceeded the limit of my cover, I would have to settle the remainder myself. And of course, they could not tell me what the total fees were likely to be - although the hourly rates for the three(!) partners assigned to the case were predictably eye-watering.

Furthermore, the lawyers' T&Cs required my full co-operation in pursuing the case - otherwise they would refer the case back to my insurers and I would automatically become liable for any costs incurred to date. Had that happened, I can only imagine that my insurers would have then taken action against me to recover their loss, on the grounds that I had effectively prevented them from recovering it from the third party. I was also left wondering how much I may have been left out of pocket if I had not had legal expenses cover as part of my policy...

I'm sure this is somehow all part of the gravy train that seems to accompany all insurance claims these days, whereby everyone from lawyers to accident management companies seems to be taking a cut of any payout, but the bottom line was that I was left in a position where I could have been liable for subtantial fees for pursuing a claim in relation to an accident that was no fault of my own in the first place (my car wasn't even moving at time!).

 

[MOCAŠ]

There is also a general principle in insurance that one cannot be negligent towards oneself : so , even where you might do something very silly insurance will still generally pay out , as long as it cannot be shown to be a reckless or intentional act perpetrated for gain .

The instance mentioned earlier about leaving keys in the ignition, or on the car, is a case in point here.

Insurance companies are now specifying this as an exclusion clause in their policies, even if there's no suggestion that the owner did it deliberately in order to allow the car to be stolen. In this instance, insurance companies do deem their customers to have been negligent towards themselves, and they are supported in this view by the insurance ombudsman - provided they can demonstrate that they had made an effort to draw the policyholder's attention to the clause.

issue 38 - insurance case studies - keys left in or on cars: a continuing problem