 | |
Insurance claim rejected - Why ?
Miscellaneous UK car topics Other UK car topics (uk.rec.cars.misc)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Insurance claim rejected - Why ? -
12-14-2003
, 01:17 PM
|
Not enough information to provide a considered response. DaveK. Police arrived at scene, did a breathalysed test and he was positive. The driver himself admitted he had too much to drink. The police advised us to settle this privately as the insurer's will not pay up and the other option would be to take this drunk to court and sue him , which will be a lengthy affair. At the end of the day, this matter was settled privately with the drunk paying for 90% of the repairs. This happened in Singapore btw.... Get out of here???!!! |
#22
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating (AT) NOSPAMPLEASE (DOT) ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3fdb93af_9 (AT) athenanews (DOT) com... snip claim is against the other driver. Not his insurance co. My advice would be to make a claim directly to the other driver. If his insurance refuses to honour your claim when he presents it to them, that's his problem. Your claim still stands. Maybe he'll have to pay you himself. Could be long winded, but providing there is no dispute as to liability, you'll get your car paid for either way. Mike. No you should never try to claim *directly* off the other driver. You can take them to court and get a ruling to be paid (with much hassle) but if the person in question won't pay or can't afford it there really is nothing you can do. You seem to forget that the guys insurance Co has already declined the claim, but in any case a claim, technically, is always against the other driver. In the same way as any other claim for compensation due to an individuals negligence. |
seperately to general claims for compensation. The whole point is that
people *must* have 3rd part insurance, and the relavant insurance company
*must* honour all 3rd part claims.
Quote:
|
The fact that insurance Co's usually accept a claim on behalf of their insured driver/s, just makes things initially easier, but there is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't make a claim directly to another driver. The law only says a driver must be insured for 3rd party claims. It doesn't even say a drriver must use an insurance Co. |
company, one which can proove to have a minimum liability (I think its about
£2million).
Quote:
|
If rich enough they can insure themselves. |
more), this is unnacceptable. You must have bought insurance.
Quote:
|
The driver can choose whether to pay out of his/her pocket, or pass the claim to their insurer. |
Quote:
|
Obviously most choose the latter option. They have to inform them of the claim whatever they choose to do. It's a condition in their insurance policy. Sueing them in court would only be a last option if, for some reason, they wouldn't or were unable to pay. Mike. |
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Mike G" <mgibbs (AT) clara (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1071376186.6079.0 (AT) eunomia (DOT) uk.clara.net... "Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating (AT) NOSPAMPLEASE (DOT) ic.ac.uk wrote in message news:3fdb93af_9 (AT) athenanews (DOT) com... snip claim is against the other driver. Not his insurance co. My advice would be to make a claim directly to the other driver. If his insurance refuses to honour your claim when he presents it to them, that's his problem. Your claim still stands. Maybe he'll have to pay you himself. Could be long winded, but providing there is no dispute as to liability, you'll get your car paid for either way. Mike. No you should never try to claim *directly* off the other driver. You can take them to court and get a ruling to be paid (with much hassle) but if the person in question won't pay or can't afford it there really is nothing you can do. You seem to forget that the guys insurance Co has already declined the claim, but in any case a claim, technically, is always against the other driver. In the same way as any other claim for compensation due to an individuals negligence. I don't think so. The rules related to road traffic are considered seperately to general claims for compensation. The whole point is that people *must* have 3rd part insurance, and the relavant insurance company *must* honour all 3rd part claims. |
the Co are maintained.
The issue of an insurance certificate on it's own, does not
guarantee that a person is actually covered for TP claims.
Quote:
|
The fact that insurance Co's usually accept a claim on behalf of their insured driver/s, just makes things initially easier, but there is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't make a claim directly to another driver. The law only says a driver must be insured for 3rd party claims. It doesn't even say a drriver must use an insurance Co. No this simply isn't true. They must have insurance with an approved company, one which can proove to have a minimum liability (I think its about £2million). If rich enough they can insure themselves. Even if you have £2million in the bank (I am not sure if you need even more), this is unnacceptable. You must have bought insurance. |
There is a legal provision for depositing a sum, (possibly
around the figure you mention) into an account, specifically for
self insurance. Not accessible whilst the cover is in force.
I doubt many take advantage of it. Which is why I only mentioned
it in passing.
Quote:
|
The driver can choose whether to pay out of his/her pocket, or pass the claim to their insurer. This is only true if the person making the claim agrees. |
to where the compensation comes from. I doubt they would even
care. I certainly wouldn't.
If, in the case of a simple small claim for damage only
compensation, you tell your insurance Co you will settle it
yourself, IME they will allow you to do so.
I doubt they would allow it for a TP injury claim, as that type
of claim can be unpredictable, and could conceivably escalate
beyond the insureds means or ability to pay.
Mike.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
This happened in Singapore btw.... |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <brhugb$gfl$1 (AT) mawar (DOT) singnet.com.sg>, 26ReD <fake (AT) fake (DOT) com writes Police arrived at scene, did a breathalysed test and he was positive. The driver himself admitted he had too much to drink. The police advised us to settle this privately as the insurer's will not pay up and the other option would be to take this drunk to court and sue him , which will be a lengthy affair. At the end of the day, this matter was settled privately with the drunk paying for 90% of the repairs. This happened in Singapore btw.... Perhaps you should have mentioned this in your original post because everyone assumed it was in the UK and based their advice on that assumption. -- |
Singapore follows British law closely
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
Recently, a drunk motorist rear ended my friend's car. They promptly swopped numbers and agreeded to make a claim on the drunk motorist insurance policy. The drunk's insurance company however refused to honour the claim as it claimed that since the driver was under the influence of alcohol, his insurance was invalidated and hence my friend had no right to claim on the drunk's policy |
Think you'll get some action...
--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *
Dave Plowman dave.sound (AT) argonet (DOT) co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.