This is a tough one. Usually I'd say that CDW wouldn't be recoverable because weather or not the claimant was in a hire vehicle or there own on the balance of probabilities they would still have been involved in any subsequent accident. However the basis of indemnity is that the claimant be return to apporximately the same financial position they were in before the accident. This would seem to indicate that in a case such as the one mentioned where either the claimant had no excess or had an excess that was considerably less then that they would be subject to in the hire vehicle that this would mean that if they had an subsequent accident in the hire vehicle they'd being paying more then they would had the original accident not happened. Now that's just how one could agrue it and I'm not saying that what I've said above is definitely correct but it's definitely one way of looking at it.

Fair enough. I forgot about logic not counting for much in the insurance industry Does this mean that if someone owns a property and rents it out that the renters as apposed to the owner would have to insure the property? Apoligises if my comments were misleading!

In that case there should be no problem with you making a claim even if your not living there. Admittedly I'm not an expert on house insurance but it seems logical that the owner can insure without living the (think of all the landlords out there - I doubt they don't have insurance). Anyway I think you should be able to claim and maintain a clear conscience Hope it works out!

MID checks don't show policy holder names though? Just the Insurance company, ref and contact details. Obviously they didn't perform a MID Check anyway as they are asking for the insurance details. DVLA Check would have given the owners name and address. The reason their client is not the same as the person involved in the accident could either be because the driver wasn't the owner and it's the owner who is claiming or perhaps they gave false details at the scene. As already noted you should forward the letter to the insurance company and let them deal with it.

Are you still an owner or part owner of the property? If so then you could argue that although you don't live there there's no reason for you not to insure it.

Get your insurance company to obtain a copy of the police report (which should include to third parties statement). At the very worst this will get rid of the "passenger" claims straight away. I'm not an expert on legal matters but I'm pretty certain the the solicitors will drop the claim for the driver aswell as soon as they get the report as it will show that the third party has lied to the police and therefore his testimony would be worthless if this went to court. In addition I would assume that any medical expert who examined the driver would have been the same one who examined the "passengers" so if they indicated that the "passengers" were injuried then their report on the driver would also be questionable. However as previously stated I think that based on the information in his statement to the police the solicitor would drop the case. As for bringing charges against the driver for fraud I wouldn't have a clue to be honest but I would assume that fraud is a criminal matter and this is clearly a matter of fraud as far as I can see.

Hey was wondering if anyone could help me on a credit hire query. Say Car A is rearended by Car B. Car A is being driven by a named driver. The named driver then goes into credit hire with the policy holder (and owner) being added as an extra driver. Named driver and not policy holder has signed all the paper work. Would this be recoverable from Car B's insurance company? My thinking would be that they are not entitled to recover the hire as they are not the owner and would not be entitled to seek a replacement. Now obviously if the policy holder/owner had signed everything then there'd be no problems but the fact that the named driver has hired the vehicle and signed all the paperwork would suggest otherwise to me. Can anyone clear this up for me please?