Insurance company stand-off

[Deleted member 37751]

Looking for a bit of advice for a close family member in a bit of a stand-off with a car insurer.

Story goes... said family member borrows their fathers car, and has a 50/50 swipe (nothing major other than both having front bumper damage) with another car on a notorious he said/she said roundabout in town.

Both drivers blame each other - as usual - but it’s quickly apparent that the insurers are going to go 50/50 (however that plays out).

Now the interesting bit; the insurer of said family member who was driving is stonewalling about repairing the car - not saying they won’t - just “call back in a fortnight” which has now been going on SINCE FEBRUARY!

So, does anyone have any advice how to mush things along? Escalate it how?

TIA.

 

[st13phil]

Send them a letter giving them 14 days to authorise repairs to commence.

If they don’t comply, follow it through with the Insurance Ombudsman.

 

[markjay]

I think some bits of information are missing here...

It's not common for insurers to drag-out settlement without giving a reason.

E.g. that they need more time for this or that, etc. Or asking the insured to produce more documents etc.

So it would be good to get a better understanding of what the issue actually is.

Said that, if it's indeed simply a bureaucratic dead-end, then yes as above write to the Ombudsman.

 

[Deleted member 149005]

What cover did the family member have?

- Named on the fathers policy or (3rd party) cover under their own policy?

Any undeclared accidents or driving license issues, before or since the incident.

 

[E53AMG]

Sounds like they are fishing for info to refuse, tell them you will proceed to repair yourself using main dealership and will be suing for the cost unless they authorise a repair within 14 days.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I think some bits of information are missing here...

It's not common for insurers to drag-out settlement without giving a reason.

E.g. that they need more time for this or that, etc. Or asking the insured to produce more documents etc.

So it would be good to get a better understanding of what the issue actually is.

Said that, if it's indeed simply a bureaucratic dead-end, then yes as above write to the Ombudsman.

The insurers are in no way disputing any documents or their liability; they’re *only* saying to “call back in a fortnight”.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

What cover did the family member have?

- Named on the fathers policy or (3rd party) cover under their own policy?

Any undeclared accidents or driving license issues, before or since the incident.

The claim is going through the family members insurers, not his fathers.

The policy has now lapsed but they were obfuscating from day one by the sounds of it.

 

[Deleted member 149005]

The claim is going through the family members insurers, not his fathers.

The policy has now lapsed but they were obfuscating from day one by the sounds of it.

Does that mean the family member only had 3rd party cover?
Fully comp on another car is unusual...

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Does that mean the family member only had 3rd party cover?
Fully comp on another car is unusual...

Right, so this makes a bit more sense - putting to one side they’ve never said they won’t pay to repair said family members dad’s car - it could be the case they’re still arguing with the 3rd party insurer...

 

[Deleted member 149005]

I’d venture the family member will have to pay out of his own pocket for damage to fathers car, whilst family members insurers may pay for damage to the other party’s car unless both insurers settle on 50/50, in which case the party’s insurer will settle on their clients car.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I’d venture the family member will have to pay out of his own pocket for damage to fathers car, whilst family members insurers may pay for damage to the other party’s car unless both insurers settle on 50/50, in which case the party’s insurer will settle on their clients car.

Brilliant - thanks.

It makes the time taken for a decision - positive or negative - rather puzzling.

 

[markjay]

Does that mean the family member only had 3rd party cover?
Fully comp on another car is unusual...

So the driver wasn't a named driver on the car's insurance policy.

Instead, the driver claims he was insured to drive the vehicle, because he has a full comprehensive cover on his own car, which also covers driving other cars, but with 3rd-party cover only.

And, the insurers of the driver and of the other party both agreed that the claim went 50-50 (aka 'knock for knock').

If the above is correct, then I don't understand what the driver expects his insurer to do? It's a closed case.

He should simply repair the damage out of his own pocket and move on...

(Still does not explain why the insurer didn't just say so)

 

[Deleted member 37751]

So the driver wasn't a named driver on the car's insurance policy.

Instead, the driver claims he was insured to drive the vehicle, because he has a full comprehensive cover on his own car, which also covers driving other cars, but with 3rd-party cover only.

And, the insurers of the driver and of the other party both agreed that the claim went 50-50 (aka 'knock for knock').

If the above is correct, then I don't understand what the driver expects his insurer to do? It's a closed case.

He should simply repair the damage out of his own pocket and move on...

(Still does not explain why the insurer didn't just say so)

I have a similar take I just don’t understand why the insurance company is dragging it out; if they said the car needs to be repaired out of family members own pocket then yes, but it seems strange to drag it out by simply stonewalling?

 

[pmcgsmurf]

I have a similar take I just don’t understand why the insurance company is dragging it out; if they said the car needs to be repaired out of family members own pocket then yes, but it seems strange to drag it out by simply stonewalling?

Can you be 100% sure this is accurate?

Wouldn't be the firs time a family member has been a little economical with the facts till they get in a better position.

 

[Deleted member 149005]

I don’t see how it can be a 50/50 settlement if the family member only had 3rd party cover on the car they were driving ...

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Can you be 100% sure this is accurate?

Wouldn't be the firs time a family member has been a little economical with the facts till they get in a better position.

They have no reason to lie to me, I asked the incident to them in passing and they told me about the shenanigans, and they’re not particularly bothered if they have to repair their dad's car, the frustration is in from not getting an answer.

A simple feck off from the insurer would be nice to hear them everyone can get on with their lives!

 

[pmcgsmurf]

Does seem a bit strange.

The 50/50 when it's another insurer and 3rd party only must complicate it a bit.
Not having a courtesy car as well probably means they ar in no hurry to resolve.

 

[zipdip]

Well it does sound strange,but my grandson was pasing a parked car when the other driver opend his cars door,it caught the lads car about 4 inches from the end of his front wing and totalled his door mirror,it seems that it is going to court as the damage to the parked car was extensive,I would have thought it was fairly straighforward but that is the way car insurance is going by the sound of it

 

[Atavus]

It’s 50/50, so each gets half his losses paid. TP Insurer to pay half the repair costs of the ‘family’ car.

Knock for knock never meant that and ceased years ago in any case.

 

[markjay]

It’s 50/50, so each gets half his losses paid. TP Insurer to pay half the repair costs of the ‘family’ car.

Knock for knock never meant that and ceased years ago in any case.

I think what it meant was simply that each party cover their own costs, i.e. no money changes hands between the two parties.

So if the driver is not due payment from the other party, and he is not due payment from his own insurer either (due to not being covered for damage to the vehicle he was driving), then it's... case closed.