My parents stayed in a hotel last night, which has valet parking. Upon check in, the car keys are handed over to the porters, who then park the car in the car park attached to the hotel.
Unfortunately, when the car was being parked, the valet was reversing into a tight space and scratched the bumper of my parents' car on another car. Although the hotel has admitted liability to us, the valet claims that the other car drove into him, while the other party claims, unsurprisingly, that he reversed into her. I wasn't there and I will make no comment on liability.
The simplest solution by far would be for the hotel's insurance to pay for the damage to both parties' vehicles, but of course this may not happen. The car is insured so that it may be driven by anybody at all, so there is no issue with regard to an uninsured driver or any question of my parents' indemnifying the insurance company for their loss other than any excess or increased future premiums - which will themselves be minimal due to protected NCB.
My feeling is that my parents' insurers should be told of this, as there is a potential claim under the policy, even if it is indemnified by the hotel owners. My father feels that they have no need to know, because the premium may increase for what is the hotel valet's fault. Any comments?
|
if you as much as mention the accident to your insurance, they will insist on making a claim...it happened to me once, increasing the premium for next year
if you ask me the damage happened while in the hotels care and they should settle it quiclky
why not pay cash to have it done and hand over the bill...that way you choose where it gets repaired
|
if you as much as mention the accident to your insurance, they will insist on making a claim...it happened to me once, increasing the premium for next year
How about claiming the amount your insurance company is going to put up your premium as an uninsured loss.
|
|
|
|
Strict letter indicates that your insurer should be informed whatever.
If the driver of the car was insured under your parents insurance policy, then I think you better inform them just in case, whether or not it will ever concern them.
If the driver was not insured by your parents policy then I probably wouldn't bother just to avoid all the complication.
|
The car is insured under your parents policy for any driver.
Presumably (!) the hotel has fully comp insurance for its oik to swank around in its customers' fancy cars.
Therefore, one way or another, the incident would appear to me to be covered by both policies? And therefore if there is a claim it would fall to be settled by both insurers? Mark?
|
No, the primary insurance would take precedence. And that likely would be the hotel's insurance since it was designed to cover both the driver and the activity.
It could only be shared if there was some question of reinsurance, if one or other policy was limited, or if it truly was either not clear which took precedence or that had equal position.
|
|
iirc the contract between insurer and insured obliges the insured to inform the insurer of any accident. Failure to do so can invalidate the insurance.
|
|
|
Ah, but what if the hotel decided to support the account of the valet parker?
Surely then they could claim that they were not liable for the incident? After all, there must be minor shunts in hotel car parks every day: it is surely very rare that the hotel is liable.
I agree that there is a duty on the car-owners to report the incident to their motor-insurers as soon as possible. However, surely each party's insurer would wish to establish the facts before paying out?
Presumably, the insurers would weigh up the benefits / risks / costs of taking / avoiding legal action to establish the facts and liability.
|
>>Ah, but what if the hotel decided to support the account of the valet parker?
Then I presume that the bill would be split between the hotel's insurer & the other woman's insurer. Just as it would be split (or knock for knock taken) if two cars hit each other and nobody could agree on what happened.
I should imagine that to avoid loss of goodwill the hotel will not be supporting its member of staff.
|
|
or at least, the point of view of its member of staff.
|
I hope so but given the two insurance policies effectively in place, if the hotel refuses to pay out, the other driver would be within her rights to seek reimbursement from my mother's policy under the Road Traffic Act - if the valet is at fault.
This would apply even if he wasn't covered under the "any driver" part of the policy - though my mother would then have to reimburse the insurer, at least in theory, albeit she would then have a fourth claim against the hotel. (Any disclaimer there may be would almost certainly be invalid.)
It looks as though the hotel will be footing the bill, though they haven't yet confirmed it in correspondence. However, for the reasons given above, the incident has been reported to the insurers (with photographs) and we are awaiting a reply.
|
I don't suppose the hotel had CCTV overlooking the carpark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are in the AA/RAC get their legal people on it so at least you will be aware of the position regarding liability. If it turns out as I hope for you and the hotel is responsible then you can recover the repair costs from them.
|
|
If the hotel management are concerned about their image they'll pay up without a murmur. A few years ago I returned to my car in a hotel car park to find a substantial dent high up on side. The manager correctly surmised that, given the location, the overnight laundry truck was the culprit. A call by him to the laundry company resulted in a swift repair; I reckon the laundry firm didn't want to risk losing the hotel's business.
|
|
|
|
