I've never had to submit any insurance claims before so I'm a little confused by the whole process.

At the weekend I was in Sheffield visiting some friends. We returned from a night out to find the Fire Brigade putting out a fire on the car I'd parked next to. That car was totally destroyed and the firemen said it appeared to be due to faulty electrics. My car, because is was parked so close, has damaged to both the driver side doors (paint and all the plastic trip), lost the drivers window, burnt the front wing, one of the wipers, some of the plastic trim around the windscreen, some of the plastic trim inside and melted part of the steering wheel.

When I called my Direct Line on sunday, they said I wouldn't be able to claim against the other cars insurance and I'd lose my no-claims and have to pay the excess. The other car owners thought it would be paid by her insurance.

Anyway I drove the car home on sunday evening and spoke to my insurance again on Monday. They've taken my car away for assessment, and took the details for the other car and owner.

Will I lose my no-claims for this, will I have to pay the excess. What normally happens to my car. Its not worth much (1998 mondeo), and any idea how long it would normally take to either return it repaired or pay our if its to be written off. I'm meant to be driving on on a camping holiday in a couple of weeks time.

Many thanks.

I fail to see any reason why this would not be covered under the other insurance....

Question this with DL, complain if you have to. Seems to me they are talking out of their bumholes.

I agree with MrShed. In a previous role I used to analyse claims-recoveries data (we're probably Direct Line's worst enemy, hehe), and I don't see why they cannot recover from the other vehicle's insurance.

If they can't recover from the other insurer, then I'm afraid you would lose your no claims discount. So you should try asking again. Do you have legal expenses cover on your car insurance - maybe that would be able to help you.

Will I lose my no-claims for this,

Maybe. If your isnusres make a full recovery of costs from the other inurer, then you shouldn't. Also check your policy carefully; with some polices a claim under the fire section does not affect NCB.

will I have to pay the excess.

What normally happens to my car. Its not worth much (1998 mondeo), and any idea how long it would normally take to either return it repaired or pay our if its to be written off.

I'm meant to be driving on on a camping holiday in a couple of weeks time.

Many thanks.

You can recover this from the other vehicle's policyholder. Also remember that your insurance company will not pay you the fill replacement cost of the vehicle - only the trade value. Again. you may have to sue the policyholder of the other vehicle for the difference.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. If I have to sue the other policy holder would any reward come from their insurers or their own pocket? I know the owner of the vehicle personally and I would feel quite bad about sueing them if they are not covered by insurance.

My advice is look for alternative transport now. Your car won't be repaired, and I doubt that your claim will be settled within 2 weeks.

I've got my other halves 206 I can borrow, but if my car is a write off then I'll go and buy another one. But does this mean I'd be paying 2 lots of insurance, 1 for the existing policy, and another for the new car?

Hazel B,

Obviously the person at Direct Line doesn't know what they are talking about. It is clear cut damage to your own vehicle caused by a Third Party.

Any excess you may have to pay will also be recoverable from the other persons insurance.

By all means allow D/L to deal with the claim providing you have the required level of cover.

On this occasion, the damage caused to your vehicle would be under the "Own/Accidental Damage section as the Fire section would operate only if it was your vehicle that caught fire. i.e. the fire caused accidental damage to your vehicle.

Direct lines Libility department just called me. They've just restated that the claim will have to be on my insurance, as there was no negligence on behalf of the other car owner that caused the fire. So i lose my no claims and the excess (which over the 2 years it will take to get my no-claims back will probably be more than the value of the car).

They have submitted a claim to the other insurers but have advised that this will probably be rejected. I do have legal protection as part of my cover. Does this then mean that DL will sue the 3rd party as part of this?

And finally, assuming the car is written off (still can't get a response from them on this) I assume that I still have to pay off the remain amout of the policy. I think I can put the replacement car onto the policy instead, is that true? But if they are not willing to insure me on the replacement car, there is no way to claim back the remaining policy moneys? Reason I'm asking that is that I had previously looked at changing the car, but the one I wanted they were not willing to insure me on until I'd been driving two years, though other insurers were willing to quote.

Cheers,

In terms of liability, it may be possible to argue that the electrical fault was the TPs negligence in failing to maintain their vehicle, but that is a long shot. Legal protection is merely another form of insurance. There still has to be liability for a claim to be made. The difference with legal protection compared to the insurance policy is that it can be used to claim for that which is not covered on the policy. If there is little chance that a claim would be successful, then they will not proceed with it. Personally, I agree with DL on this (sorry).

In terms of your car, if it is written off, the whole premium becomes due. But what you say is correct.

They will usually just allow you to change the vehicle details and adjust the premiums accordingly (so you will continue to pay monthly if you do so already). If they will not continue the policy (no reason why they should not by the looks of things) then the premiums will either become payable in full.

Before getting the replacement car, it will be best to check they are going to cover first. I remember a while ago a lady done a change of vehicle (to a bigger one to carry her kids round) and was upset when we wouldn't cover it, as she had spent several thousands on buying the vehicle and nearly as much again adapting it.

the vehicle was, I kid you not, a hearse.

In terms of liability, it may be possible to argue that the electrical fault was the TPs negligence in failing to maintain their vehicle, but that is a long shot.

I admit this isnt my area, but I fail to see the issue with negligence here. No-one is saying the other persons fault, but it is their responsibility - that is why THEY have insurance.

Going to go for an analogy here. If I park my car on a hill, and the handbrake broke then rolled down the hill for some few hundred yards then hit another car, I would be fully liable for the cost to the other car(or rather, my insurance would). Yes, I could potentially reclaim this cost from the manufacturer or dealer, but in the first instance I would be liable for these costs. I fail to see the difference.

There are accidents where neither party has been negligent(its rare, but it happens), however there is still usually liability and responsibility in these situations.

I'm still not convinced that this wouldn't be covered by the third party's insurance. If the fire was due to faulty electrics, then maybe it's the fault of the manufacturer of the third party's car? If that's the case, then it might be covered by the manufacturer's products liability cover, and DL should be able to recover the sum from that.

If this was me, I would want to seek a second opinion (from someone unconnected with any of the companies involved). Therefore it might be a good idea to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service and see what they have to say (although you would have to complete DL's internal complaints procedure first).

I don't think that third party damage has much to do with negligence. Imagine if you were a pedestrian injured by some unavoidable accident but caused by a motorist (having a heart attack for example). I can't imagine that they would turn around and refuse to pay you.

Put the claim in against the third party and then play it by ear.

Can you give us some idea of the age and condition of the other car and the age, gender and style of its owner.

You may have to put a claim in against your own insurers in the short term to get your car replaced quickly but run the other claim in parallel.

This may be a first when an insurer insists upon bearing the brunt of the claim.

Thank you again for all the replies. The other car was an J reg Nova, the owner in her late twenties, I'm afriad I don't understand what you mean by style in this instance.

What is J reg? Are you talking about 1971? By style I mean professional, with it, competent, airhead, dizzy, clueless?

Did the car look as if it had been well-maintained or badly used? Was is in good condition or knocked about? Where is it now? Are you able to get photos of it

The car was a 1991 J reg. The owner, whilst blonde, is far from airheaded, works in an Architects office, and comes across and both professional and competent. And I think, despite its age, the car was well maintained. I have pictures, but only after the incident.

I have just realised that you say that you know the owner of the other car.

That makes it much easier.

Sue her and win. She will then be able to force her insurers to pay out your damage. It will be very helpful if you could get from her or from an expert some idea of the cause of the fire - meaning why was the wiring faulty.

However, it was a 17 year old car. It stands to reason that the wiring was no longer in good condition. You can win this in court easily in my view.

Make the claim against her insurers. Write to them directly. Tell them that if you don't have an acceptance of your claim in 2 weeks that you will begin a county court action. Don't bluff this - do it at the expiry of your deadline. tell them also that you will be complaining to the insurance ombudsman if the balk. Follow up all of your threats or else don't make them.

There should be no need to sue the TP direct as if the OP has comprehensive cover then Direct Line will pay for the repair and definatelt be able to recover from the Third Party insurers. In is an insured event.

I'm sure one of the claims gurus can confirm this.

There should be no need to sue the TP direct as if the OP has comprehensive cover then Direct Line will pay for the repair and definatelt be able to recover from the Third Party insurers. In is an insured event.

 

I'm sure one of the claims gurus can confirm this.

I've just recieved a letter from DL today;

"we must advise that from the circumstances presented it is unlikely that we will make a successful claim against the owner of the other vehicle."

So it is looking like I may need to sue the TP directly. When I spoke with DL they did say it would take a few weeks to get a response from the TPs' insurers, so I'll wait on that before progressing futher.

There should be no need to sue the TP direct as if the OP has comprehensive cover then Direct Line will pay for the repair and definatelt be able to recover from the Third Party insurers. In is an insured event.

 

I'm sure one of the claims gurus can confirm this.

Quite right, there should be no need but as the TP insurers don't seem to be interested and even Hazel's own insurer's want to take the hit and cause her to lose her excess, she may be obliged to sue the TP.

Frankly the TP is a soft target so why not anyway.

They will only do so if there is a reasonable chance of success. If they feel there is not, they will not pursue it. I am not saying its right or wrong, just the way it is (in fact, if there is little chance of success and it went to court anyway, the court would take a dismal view of the matter).

I still stand by what I say that there must be negligence to some extent for a claim to be made against a third party. A third party MAY choose to pay out if it believes it is just and reasonable to do so (or even if it's just to shut someone up or for a publicity stunt as often happens) but they do not have to.

Lets say this ended up in court as the TP deny liability. What, exactly, is the OPs claim against the TP? It has been a while since I was in insurance, and I had little involvement in liability department. I would appreciate enlightenment on this.

There must have been negligence, but it is balance of probabilities negligence. Fires don't just start there must have been a cause of some sort. There has been no discussion of the possibility of arson. The existence of an electrical fault I would have thought is prima facie negligence as it is within a motorists control to keep their car fault free. Further "spreading fire" is a well recognised insurance peril. The real question is whether it is reasonable to expect a motorist to keep their car fault free at all times.

The TP is stuffed insurance wise. There is nothing to lose by claiming against her and this can be done without damaging the relationship. Simply write as follows:

Dear x

I refer to the fire on dd/mm/yyyy which originated in your car and spread to mine. This is to let you know that I hold you responsible for the damage to my car.

I would appreciate it if you could pass this letter to your insurers as it will be much easier and less stressful for us all if I dealt with them direct.

Yours sincerely

Be interesting it TP insurers are also DL!

Just one further point. The settlement from your insurers should be replacement value not trade value, the policy is one of indemnity. Expect some horse-trading on what the replacement value is.

That is what I am tyring to say. There needs to be negligence. Proving it is a different matter.

Also if TP is also DL then I'd just give up anyway - those situations are nightmares (usually caused by the staff).

Gyzmo once again I find myself agreeing with you on this one and to a large extent the sentiments of BTB.

The OP would only succeed in a claim if they can demonstrate negligence by the owners of the car that caught fire, which in my experience would be very hard to do and even harder for us to comment on until we know the cause of the fire.

Only when the cause of the fire has been established is it possible to look and see if that could have been anticipated or prevented, ie if it was some passing yobs who set the car on fire and then did a runner then there is zero chance of recovery, likewise if it was oil that had seeped onto the manifold that had triggered it etc.

If the OP can ascertain the cause of the fire and post back it would help

Mossycat

That is what I am tyring to say. There needs to be negligence. Proving it is a different matter.

 

Also if TP is also DL then I'd just give up anyway - those situations are nightmares (usually caused by the staff).

Nope. Technically you still sue the TP. DL takes over the defence of the claim in the name of the TP using the doctrine of subrogation.

All you need is a prima facie case of negligence to make a claim. Why would DL bother to defend if they have to pay anyway, all it will do is increase their costs.

They may offer to settle but you don't have to accept that. Even if you have comp cover, if you have any uninsured loss you can sue for the full amount Morley V Moore is the authority.

My starting point would probably be:

On dd/mm/yyyy a fire commenced in VRM x owned by y. The fire spread to my vehicle. The damage caused to my vehicle [cost £z to fix/resulted in it being declared a write-off with a pre damage value of £zz].

I hereby allege that in the absence of any other explanation the cause of the fire was the failure of y to adequately maintain her vehicle including in particular the electrics and that fire is a known and reasonably forseeable possible consequence of a failure to maintain I further allege that spreading fire to adjacent vehicled is a reasonably foreseeble consequence.

I claim the sum of £z/£zz plus additional costs of . . . . and interest . . .

I would probably pay to get a lawyer to give it the once-over also.

Sorry - the bit about DL v DL was generalised. When I came across such cases it was a mess. staff updated the TPs notes instead of the insured's, and vice versa, and there was the ridiculous situaion of advisors telling TPs to call again to "speak to another department" (the TP claims dept) only to get back through to the same advisor who would then answer the questions because they came through on the correct telephone number. And most staff couldn't even explain adequately how same insurer cases worked at all.

(PS - I know about subrogation - I was CIPD qualified!)