My sister-in-law was recently involved in an incident where her car was struck by a couple of motorcycles.
She was not held to blame by the police.Motorcyclists were prosecuted.
However , the motorcycle riders , who were uninsured and banned ,sued her for damages. The insurance company has admitted liability and is going to cough up.
What's the point in having insurance when you can just get one of the 'no win no fee' lot to recover your losses? Just think of all the insurance premiums you'll save.
|
|
I think we should be told who the insurance company is! Doesn't sound as if they have a brain cell in their corporate head.
|
Just wonder if this a 75-25% blame accident in favour of the female.
Hence her claim for damage under Insurance cannot be met from the others through no Inusrance whereas they can claim off hers?
Presume therefore this would be in order despite the distaste.
This would not preclude the female from taking a Civil action herself for damages.
Perhaps Mark(RBLS)and expert on Insurance matters can advise?
DVD.
|
|
|
|
Do her insurance company know they were prosecuted ? Are you sure that they were ?
She can stop it by withdrawing her claim.
There is quite a lot to this, which I am quite happy to explain, but it will be later tonight since I am running off to a meeting right now.
Mark.
|
|
|
"She was not held to blame by the police.Motorcyclists were prosecuted.However , the motorcycle riders , who were uninsured and banned ,sued her for damages. The insurance company has admitted liability and is going to cough up."
What were they prosecuted for? No insurance and driving while banned? - or for causing the accident?
What do you mean "she was not held to blame by the police"? Did they say the motorcyclists were at fault? Or did they take no action against either party? Not the same thing at all.
Why did the insurance company admit liability? Surely only on the statement given by your sister-in-law.
|
Thanks for your various thoughts on this.
I do not know the exact answers to these questions as I was not present at the various interviews.
Witnesses apparently stated that the bikes were going very fast shortly before the impact, but the speed of impact the police forensics guessed at was 40mph.
One bike was left embedded in the engine compartment.New Mazda 323.
I believe the prosecution was for the document offences only.
Not sure if S-I-L confessed to anything but she was very distressed for weeks and went to her GP who said she had post traumatic stress.I think that she'd rather put things behind her now.
It is unlikely to be worthwhile suing these guys as they allegedly were serial offenders without assets (apart from bent motorcycles).
I read that there were estimated to be a half million uninsured drivers out there.
Beware.
|
Motor Insurance Bureau operate a scheme where drivers are involved in accidents with other uninsured vehicles and injury is caused. SIL may have a legitimate claim on MIB but I am not sure how MIB would look at P.T.S. as an injury, which it is?
DVD
|
|
|
The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that S I L was at fault for the accident, which is why her insurance company has admitted liability.
If that is the case she would not be able to successfully sue them even if they were insured.
Even so it does seem unjust that uninsured towrags have the same rights as somebody with TPF&F insurance.
|
The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that S I L was at fault for the accident so it does seem unjust that uninsured towrags have the same rights as somebody with TPF&F insurance.
So they were acting irresponsibly (criminally?) by riding without documents. She was acting irresponsibly (criminally?) by knocking them off.
If by, your logic, their act should deprive them of rights so should hers.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![2020 SEAT Ibiza 1.0 TSI 95 SE Technology [EZ] 5dr](//images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/58e6bc16ef54fc608427a12ee4ada6b8/69050066dd6233fc6bccd8e8acf7b961.jpg)
£11,000was £11,200Details
£17,250was £17,750Details
£22,300was £22,800Details
£28,290was £28,990Details![2020 SEAT Ibiza 1.0 TSI 95 SE Technology [EZ] 5dr](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/58e6bc16ef54fc608427a12ee4ada6b8/69050066dd6233fc6bccd8e8acf7b961.jpg)
