Jump to content

Aitken Brotherston

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. This isn't really a political discussion but "as with most of the EU rules, they're to simplify cross border trade". Really? 126 pages of regulations to sell cabages. Simplify??? Suing a foreign driver in a foreign registered vehicle insured by a foreign insurance company is likely to be something of an up-hill struggle. Of course, if the situation were reversed, anyone elsewhere in the EU suing a UK driver/insurance company would be given all possible assistance by authorities in the UK. Given other countries' propensity for adhering only to EU rules they like, I would not be confident of assistance in the other direction. I'm not sure if "joint and several" for co-defendants is available elsewhere in the EU but it is still the way to go in the UK.
  2. Yes I guess there is some logic to it as the Insurance company would remain liable for the risk even if it were to the estate of the diseased person even if the insurance policy expired or was cancelled after the accident. I guess the best way to cover all eventualities would be to sue "joint and several" which means that all named parties would be liable for the whole of the claim, it only being shared if both parties are able to share the liability and pay. It's a nice catch-all.
  3. Interesting - I'd didn't know about that. Do you know if there is an equivalent UK statute? I guess it's a moot point whether you can sue the insured or the insurer provided the risk you are claiming against is covered. The difference would be if the risk was not part of the cover. In RTAs it almost certainly would be but it makes an interesting point. Thanks for the info - you live and learn.
  4. Yes good point. Whatever necessary expense you incur is claimable so if you have to hire a car with a tow hitch then it goes into the claim pot. Claiming loss of use for some convenience features e.g. built in satnav etc might prove an up-hill struggle unless you can show it was a necessary for you. You are however expected to keep claims to a reasonable level. Your good point demonstrated the necessity of keeping good records.
  5. Excellent points UncleBulgaria but it is always the third party you sue because it is the third party not you who has the contactual realationship with his/her insurance company. It usually is the case that the insurance company will accept service of the court documentation and act on behalf of their client but the defendant is the insured not the insurer. The insurer will be financially liable unless they can find a "get-out" in which case it is the other party who is liable. Excellent advice otherwise.
  6. Loss of use (of your car) is a perfectly acceptable head of claim but I suspect it is usually either loss of use or car hire. Of course you can have both if the car hire does not cover all the time you are without your own car. It's in the "gift" of the judge if it goes to court.
  7. A claim with injury I pursued, to which I referred earlier, took three years to be settled but then I'm a snotty nosed, persistent nuisance when I don't get what I want and I know I'm right. I can't say whether that was typical or no and part of the time was taken up arguing about Diminution of Value (they started saying it didn't apply - I said it did and wanted £1300 – I eventually had to settle for only £1295), however, a lot of it was arguments over the injuries suffered by my wife and me. In injury claims the losing side pays all the legal fees so your insurance company will not be out of pocket. However I would be careful about legal expense coverage, it is usually cost limited so insurance companies can sometimes try to limit activity and that can be to the litigant's (your) disadvantage. Just keep an eye on them and demand to be kept informed of what is happening. Lawyers are very good a spending other people's money. Win or lose – they get paid unless you have a no-win, no-fee deal but you only get one of these if it's a dead cert. Good luck
  8. Not sure how many CAGers we have but put the word out. The petition has to be placed on the Government website. https://www.gov.uk/petition-government
  9. If you want it to go to County Court (Sheriff Court in Scotland) you will probably have to take it over yourself. If your claim is less than a certain amount, £5000 in England last time I looked, you can use the Small Claims procedure and in England do it via an on-line procedure called Moneyclaim online. If the defendant wishes to challenge your claim, it will probably end up actually in a court before a District Judge (Sheriff in Scotland), no jury. You will need to gather and assess all your evidence but the decision will be made on the “balance of probability” not “beyond all reasonable doubt “ as in a criminal trial. The last time I was in court claiming for damage and injury in a head-on collision (I was stationary on my side of the road too) the insurance company solicitor was so pathetic I burst out laughing. That really impressed "The Beak”. He was a pompous old fart but I won anyway although not at that hearing. If you are not confident in that environment you might care to use a solicitor – solicitor's fees and out of pocket expenses are added to the amount you claim – assuming you win of course. If you chose a solicitor, chose carefully, you don't want to end up with the insurance company's chap from my case. Good luck.
  10. At 10,000 signatures you get a response from the government. At 100,000 signatures your petition will be considered for a debate in Parliament
  11. I suspect you are right. It seems to me that there is a political campaign here. You are required by law to insure a motor vehicle you drive on the public highway. That, of course, involves an assessment of risk but it is surely unfair to take into account anything that does not represent a risk. If you were insuring the car you and your wife drive you might accept a perceived additional risk without details of the two incidents in which your wife was involved. Was it entirely the 3rd party's fault? etc. But on a vehicle only you drive and you have had no incidents or accidents, it seems to me that they are including a risk that does not exist merely in order to increase their revenue. I think they should be forced by law to justify their increased premium. But that's something Parliament would have to address.
  12. Such it the nightmare of dealing with Insurance companies stewieboi. They will always / often reduce their payout by wearing you down After all they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I'm afraid it demonstrates the value of gathering as much evidence as posible and a witness if you can. Having done that it still took me 3 years to settle a head on collison claim. I missed a bit though - I forgot to include interest - you live and learn. I now have a dash-cam on my car. Staggering what it picks up - makes your toes curl sometimes. If you have accepted the settlement as "full and final" you are probably screwed. If not I would go back and claim "diminution of value". I like to call it worsement - goes nicely with the insurance companies' claim lowering "betterment" (not the banking one). "Diminution of value" is the difference between the value of your vehicle immediately before the collision and after it is repaired. Even if it is expertly repaired its value is still lower. I am not a lawyer so cannot give legal advice.
  13. Good advice Uncle B. I always look around even although I have 20+years claim free. I don't always phone a broker directly but do sometimes arrange via a broker after selecting on the net. One thought did occur. What questions were asked? Have you had an accident in the past x years? No, Have you made a claim in the past x years? No, Is there a claim pending? No There are no lies there so nothing they can wriggle out with afterwards. Depends on the questions. The point is that whatever risk is attached to the person it did not attach to Mr King12345 but to his wife and his wife did not ride his motorcycle.
  14. If the original policy is under estimated and that is the reason for the doubling of the premium then all policies in that geography would double as the result of 2 idiot instances. Assuming a normal population density (numbers not IQ), not realistic I'm afraid. The false representation by the insurance company is "Mr King12345 You made a claim so your NCD is reduced so we will double your premium". The falshood is perpetrated because King12345 did not make a claim. If you claimed for an accident that did not happen, you would be guilty of fraud or attempted fraud if you were caught. You would be prosecuted as should the Insurance Company.
×
×
  • Create New...