RTA obligation, force insolvency to claim costs???

[LIN12345]

I have never done this before so hopefully I am posting in the right place.

Long story short (ish)

2010 a man came to our garage and asked our young trainee ( on his break) to have a look at his car on the forecourt, young lad did, car engaged, the man got a fright stepped back and tripped and fell and hurt himself. ( Told police / ambulance the same)

The insurance company are unable to offer indemnity as due to it being on the forecourt it is covered by the Road Traffic Act and he was under 25 and not insured.

The man did hurt himself - not disputed, our trainee should have refused to help, he was in charge of the vehicle - not disputed.

We have heard nothing for 2 years, changed out broker in the mean time.

Court letters and doctors reports etc from the man started to arrive, so I have gone back to our original broker and have been forwarded a letter they received in 2012 ( which they never passed on) saying that the insurance company do not think there is a good enough case to dispute liability so we intend to make an offer to the claimant under our RTA obligation. Subject to us signing an "Assignement and Agreement" This was never signed. ( We never received it) They also dispute that it is covered by our public liability due to it being outside.

 

The insurance company have addmited liability and will pay for the claim and all costs. The letter for this has just come in the post and they will then want to recover the costs from us. I called and spoke to the person dealing with it at the insurance company and they don't thnk that it is worth me getting a solicitor as they are going to pay, just a matter of how much.

 

COST REVOVERY????

 

Now for the question - how will they do that, we are a small 3-4 person garage, with assets no where near what they would want. A limited company, with a very small bottom line, no debts and no creditors.

Is it worth their while to force us into insolvency / administration - there is very little they can get that way.

Will they force a monthly payment plan?

Do they request accounts and then make a decision if it worth hammering onto us. Would this be based on them being sure they can get say 50% of the claim repaid - The insurance has a figure of £51,000 against the claim.

As you can imagine this is really causing a huge amount of stress as we have no way of knowing what they intend to do.

Any help or advice would be so appreciated.

[unclebulgaria67]

You need proper legal advice, as these Insurers are trying to ride rough shot over you. They are telling you that you are not covered for what has happened, they have to accept under RTA and that you will have to pay. On what basis are they telling you this ? What legal opinions have they obtained ? What does this legal opinion actually say ? What you may find is that the claim is being dealt with by Insurance people with some legal knowledge, but they are probably not qualified in law.

 

2010 a man came to our garage and asked our young trainee ( on his break) to have a look at his car on the forecourt, young lad did, car engaged.

 

What do you mean car engaged ?

 

Was the young trainee actually in charge of the car ?

 

Why did the man take fright causing him to step back to fall and hurt himself ? How close was the car to him ? Did this man put himself in a position of risk ?

 

Did this man have any pre-existing medical conditions prior to this accident ? What independent medical reports have the Insurers obtained ?

 

The Insurers are correct that this third party can make a claim against the Insurers under RTA, but they do have an obligation to you to ensure that it is dealt with properly. It is very wrong of them to tell you that it is not worth speaking to a Solicitor, as your business, the livelyhood of you and your colleagues is at risk. You could be taken to court and at some point could receiving a winding up order, if they can do this, selling any assets they can to recover as much as possible.

 

In this position, I can see no choice but seeing a Solicitor who is able to deal with such instances. You are going to need one at some stage and I would not leave it until you have received the court claim through the post.

[LIN12345]

Thanks for your help.

He told the lad that the car would not go into reverse ( an automatic), so hand break on, foot break on, and the car went into reverse easily, moving back about 2 ft. The man was standing in the open doorway giving instructions, saw the drivers door come towards him and stepped back, fell and broke his hip.

Insurers have obtained nothing, done nothing, said nothing apart from they are paying as It is too expensive for them to fight it in court. As the young lad was " the expert" and should have carried out the test in the controlled manner of the workshop.

I am ot sure what type of solicitor to go to as don't want to be mis informed again.

[unclebulgaria67]

Solicitor that deals with liability situations and Insurances. Law Society have a helpline and may be able to advise which Solicitors specialise.

 

I am not certain why the Insurances that you had did not cover you and this is something that needs to be looked into. Sounds a bit strange that there is no cover, they admit liability without too much of a fight and expect you to pay them.

[LIN12345]

Thank you so much for your help. I am on the case and hopefully going in the right direction.

[Ganymede]

Are they classing your forecourt as part of the highway? Is it not private property?

 

What did the customer trip on?

[Ethel Street]

Are they classing your forecourt as part of the highway? Is it not private property?

The RTA definitions of where compulsory motor insurance is required are wide enough to include private property in some circumstances. You'd need to look up precise definitions but in general if the public have access then compulsory motor insurance is required and RTA applies (eg to driving offfences). There is a lot of case law on what 'public have access' means, but eg pub car parks during opening hours have been found to be 'public places' and subject to RTA. It's another point for OP to follow up though, why do insurers think the forecourt is subject to RTA? Take legal advice though, OP might be better off letting insurers deal with it as RTA claim than have them deal with it as non-RTA. If OP has a motor traders policy with both types of cover in different sections of the same policy it might not make much difference in practice.