Jump to content

INSURANCEGUY

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

68 Excellent

About INSURANCEGUY

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I know this thread has quietened down but having dealt with several flood claims recently I can assure you that you will not have any joy with the council. Flooding is an act of god, however that doesn't mean that no one is negligent, as in this instance. The issue here is that the flooding didn't damage your vehicle, you did by driving through the flood. If something (water) is there to be seen then you don't really have any hope- even if it was difficult to see, it was there and you drove into it, it didn't just appear from no where. Sorry that these answers weren't what you were looking for.
  2. Hi Whizz kid, unless the area's of damage can shed some light on the matter, 50/50 might be the only realistic outcome. Ask Aviva if they have an engineer's report for your vehicle, normally you can tell instantly if the door was hit whilst open or opened onto a vehicle (by the impact marks). Hope this helps a little, I haven't been on here for a while but will try to get on to check for updates.
  3. going slightly off topic Sailor Sam, do you work in claims in some form? As in for an accident management co/hire co/sols etc? seems unlikely to be an insurer you work for (just my opp) and you obviously dont have to answer if you dont wish
  4. JonCris, even if there were independent witnesses confirming heavy braking in bad weather, the OP should still have maintained a safe stopping distance. simples
  5. It would be wrong of anyone to advise you here, you need to seek advice from a professional in Canada or on a Canadian Forum etc. sorry
  6. The other party will be required to supply full details of your vehicle under the Road Traffic Act, make, model, colour, reg. Unless they are able to supply this, there is no claim to make as negligence cannot be proven against you.
  7. totally agree with Mossy here, if the OP paid insurance for a vehicle prior to the ax, not paying premiums now would clearly be betterment. with regards to repair delays, if you worked in the industry surely you would know that very rarely are repairs completed ontime, quite often due to problems in QC or Valet on a friday afternoon!
  8. Hi Mossy, Although not my area; I would tend to agree with your thoughts, the insurer from the time of 'negligence' if it were to arise would be liable, and as liability certificates have to be retained I can see no benefit in doing so... although- I have had a dig on google, and everything seems to be Americanised (compo culture etc) however they refer to a non practising extension, which allows you to report an incident after the end of a liability policy, as though all incidents must be reported before policy expiry? sorry I cant help further.
  9. Hi Lola, just to add to Natalie's comments, although it is not his responsibility to defend a claim, he would be needed if the case progressed to court, as he may have to give evidence, however again the insurer would sort this and would arrange representation. Strangely enough, I dealt with a very similar claim today!
  10. sailor sam, are you trying to suggest that the comments between 9 and 17 were not useful? As I would strongly disagree- we have established for the OP that it will not be "Simple... 'quich', thus avoiding giving a false sense of hope, and also Mossy has explained the benefit of having witness statements, and also established that they need to support their claim, proceedings cannot be issued if the claimant has not co-operated on liability disputes, so would it not be much easier to avoid any litigation and try to negotiate, people shouldnt threaten litigation unless they are 100% prepared to go through with it, and ensure that steps were taken to try to avoid such action. sorry if I sound to be rambling on, but to issue, or threaten to, is like working as a fee earner, not as a claimant with no legal representation.
  11. hi GG, if your insurer had reported it to them that day, they may say they admit liability on a without prejudice basis, to avoid you going to accident management companies. on the otherhandit may have been an error on their part, and yes, an admission can be withdrawn.
  12. Hi Reebo, as advised by Craig, answer honestly. There is obviously an issue somewhere and the third party insurer will be looking to defend the claim for hire, this is why these questions have been put to you (known in the industry as part 18 questions). You must answer honestly. I would double check your policy documents- you are normally only entitled to a courtesy car if yours is repairable and going through an insurance approved repairer. hope this helps further.
  13. surely by saying subject to t's & c's of hire company they are covering themselves. I dont know of many hire companies who would risk a 9pt driver!
×
×
  • Create New...