Insurance company want to pay out for an accident that wasn't my fault

[The Omen]

Yep she had comprehensive insurance, and it does cover her 3rd party on any other car but the small print excludes 3rd party insurance if the car is your partners - rather sneaky of More Than if you ask me but it is in their policy details so I guess I can't really argue with that.

[raydetinu]

yep, makes sense when you think about; but best to put partner on you policy if they have an ok record and over 25, as this usualy reduces premium by spreading risk.

let us konw how you get on and interested to see the car hire claim invoice.

[Mwynci]

Yeh, the more than policy wording states that, how do you define partner? -spouse, living with, someone you've been with for a week? If you have access to your friends car, are they a partner? it's a big assumption.

More work would be needed i.e. knowing what the actual cert states, as UB rightly mentions above really it's your place to check, but there's only so far you can go to check, and if their cert doesn't define, we'll there would be no way of knowing. I stick by my point (potentially to others better judgement) that if your insurers are dealing under an obligation rather than a principle of indemnity you should fight your corner for your NCD that you are receiving no financial gain here in either damage for your car, or paying for damage you are responsible for.

Have a go, you have nothing more to lose.

[unclebulgaria67]

A claim against the policy is a claim against the policy, irrespective of how it has come about. Therefore the Insurers are entitled to reduce the NCD. This will all be contained in the policy contract.

 

Not aware of any regulatory rules or laws that cover legal obligations versus principle of indemnity. If you have such knowledge Mwynci, please share this, as we would all find that interesting.

Edited July 2, 2011 by unclebulgaria67

[raydetinu]

from more than policy;

“your partner”

means the partner, or husband or wife of the policyholder living at the same address as the

policyholder and sharing financial responsibility. This does not include business partners or associates.

[Mwynci]

Thanks for the policy wording Raydetinu, a lot will depend what is stated on the policy cert - and how much applies to the OP, not sure how applicable how much that will relate to this incident.

UB, I'm playing devil's advocate here, potentially talking through my .... as I've said earlier, I could be wrong and I do understand I'm playing far past the basics of an insurance policy and potentially looking for something that's not there.

The basic issue is I find it unfair that the OP get's penalised over being duped into letting someone drive his car, expecially that the driver was prepared to pay for the repair costs, suggesting a general acceptance to deal with the claim, but now they have dissapeared, the OP has to pick up the pieces, I do also find sympathy with the insurer, and yes if this hit my desk, I'd be arguing on the behalf of the insurer. It's like a WOP payment and I'm sure this will be made on a WOP basis, if you pay a tp fraud claim on a WOP basis to get rid, why should the PH be penalised. If you had TPO cover and a named thief damaged a tp property, but you could not claim for your own damage, is the NCD discount reduction fair? Is TCF being penalised for someone else's actions, who you did looking at the More than Policy wording (we don't know which policy the op relates to) it states about the NCD if You make a claim under the policy, in this case it is only article 75 that makes the claim be paid under their insurance policy. The policyholder didn;t make a claim, it's only because the insurer has to pay the claim it's being made.

 

Tell me to shut up if you think I've gone to far.

Have a good weekend all.

[unclebulgaria67]

Interesting argument, but this would have been made in court, as I don't see the FOS seeing it that way. For a £700 claim, I would not see the justifcation in incurring legal/court fees.

 

You could also make the argument that the Insurers exclusion relating to theft by deception is unfair. Whether the deception is deliberate or unintentional in this case, I don't think this would come into it. The Insurers/policyholder is liable for the third parties costs and they have offered the option of either paying the third party themselves or for the policyholder to do this. It is a case of how far is the OP prepared to go for the sum of £700. They could argue whether the £700 hire car fees incurred for such a minor accident is reasonable or not. It may be worth checking, but I suspect it was for two weeks hire from a major hire company, for a similar car to the one damaged.

[raydetinu]

I think will have to wait and see what op gets in way of responses.

Also I think OP could consider himself lucky; if mr plod had been around he could of had car taken and ex done for no insurance.

[The Omen]

Thank you very much everyone for there help with this, it really is appreciated and I think it is great that somebody like me, with no experiance of things like this can come to a website like this and get so much usful information.

 

As for my situation - having spoken to Admiral they are unsure why the underwriters have contacted me direct - as far as Admiral are aware no claim is in place on my insurance!!!!

 

Admiral have come through and said that they are going to defend the claim on the grounds that - firstly I did everything in my power to check my ex had insurance, including checking her policy document and that the claim about partners is unclear. Secondly, that my partner accepted responsability for the accident as proved by the fact she has already partly paid for the victims costs so she should pay for the rest and thirdly that the victims repair costs do not equate to the damage that was agreed was done to her vehicle.

 

Once again thank you for everyone for there help - although it did confuse me for awhile it also set me on the right path, it is very much appreciated.

[unclebulgaria67]

As for my situation - having spoken to Admiral they are unsure why the underwriters have contacted me direct - as far as Admiral are aware no claim is in place on my insurance!!!!

 

Admiral have come through and said that they are going to defend the claim

 

The underwriters MMA contacted you because according to central Insurance records they hold the liability risk for the vehicle in question and would have been contacted by the third parties legal people to reclaim their clients expenses.

 

Admiral will have to argue this out with MMA, if they want to defend. I would expect that Admiral will contact you to say that the claim will be registered against the policy and they won't pursue it any further. Just my take on this. I think the Admiral claims handler should have told you they would investigate and not appear to make promises they might not deliver on.

[raydetinu]

hope it is sorted out ok, in your favour.

may help if you find contact address for ex though! another option to get of your case.