|
I repeat my questions above.
|
|
it's the same in any multiple shunt, unless there's evidence to the contrary everyone claims from the guy at the back. Certainly that's my experience when a guy ran into the car behind me which then hit my car when I was stationary in a traffic jam.
|
>Why is a driverless parked car obliged to be insured?
Two obvious risks - it could roll off if the handbrake failed, or it could spontaneously combust. Both are very unlikely, but have happened. Potential for huge claims in both cases.
|
But only we are now told if someone was at fault.
If the combustion were truely spontaneous and the driver was not present and not at fault, then no claim would be possible? At least, that is what is asserted above. Car B is innocent therefore cannot be claimed against.
|
Claiming from 3rd party (Insurance say NO !?)
Hell cruffythedog118. The legal eagles refer to this situation as "proximate cause" or somesuch latin phrase.
In my opinion, purely as a layman, if Car B was parked legally - see Highway Code for guidance - then keeper/owner/insurer of Car B is likely to be deemed NOT to be at fault.
Try asking for free advice at www.roadsidelawyer.co.uk/
Why is a driverless parked car obliged to be insured?
Hello Cliff Pope. I think your best chance of getting an answer to that is to ask your MP and he/she then can ask those responsible for drafitng the law to give you chapter and verse.
Edited by jbif on 04/12/2007 at 12:01
|
Ask your MP ??
Elected representatives can't stick to their own simple rules about political funding - how on earth do you expect an MP to understand complex legislation.
|
simple rules about political funding - how on earth do you expect an MP to understand complex legislation.
Hello Ruperts Trooper
Can you read/understand simple English? If so, read my post again and maybe you will see a difference between what you think I said and what I actually said.
Hope that helps.
|
"I thought insurance was about fact, not fault. If I maintain my roof properly, but nonethe less a slate blows off in a gale and does some damage to a third party, my insurance would cover that loss."
Cliff, your insurance wouldn't cover it because you haven't been negligent. For you to be liable, the Third Party needs to prove negligence and by keeping your roof in good repair, you are not being negligent. So, parking your car legally (Car B) you are not being negligent.
|
Cliff your insurance wouldn't cover it because you haven't been negligent. For you to be liable the Third Party needs to prove negligence and by keeping your roof in good repair you are not being negligent. >>
Are you saying I would not be liable, or that my insurance company would not be?
Are people never liable for the consequences of their actions unless they are negligent?
If the owner of the "spontaneously combusting car" is not liable, are there any circumstances in which a faultless empty car needs insurance?
|
Er, yes, the houshold insurance probably would pay under the 'householders liability to third parties' section. Negligence doesn't come in to it.
In the case of multiple shunts, I understood everyone claimed against the car immediately behind them, and the claims were pased on up the chain to the vehicle which caused the problem.. Leaves owner of car B in a bind, but surely that's why he's insured. I wonder if his insurance company are trying to wriggle out of this.
JS
|
Er yes the houshold insurance probably would pay under the 'householders liability to third parties' section. Negligence doesn't come in to it.
Er...are you sure about this JS - where does the householder's liability to third parties arise if he could not reasonably have foreseen the tile coming off, e.g. if the cause is exceptional and unforseeable weather conditions?
|
where does the householder's liability to third parties
Bit of a catch 22? If you don't maintain your property correctly, the Insurer will refuse to pay out. If you do maintain it correctly, then it is not your fault, and so your Insurer will not pay out? Real life cases have found solutions in Courts and have not been defeated by catch 22.
|
Reasonably sure, yes, without reading my policy! Any insurance is for exceptional and perhaps unforseen conditions. The policy will pay to replace tiles blown off in exceptional winds - no negligence on the owners part needed. For the same reason it will, I believe, pay for damage such tile may cause.
JS
|
|
Interesting this, I had never thought about it. I always knew that the driver who "caused" the incident was to blame, but this "the driver of b is not to blame so we wont pay out" is one I hadnt thought about. Frankly I dont think the insurance company of B have a leg to stand on morally.
What happens in this scenario.
I park my car on a slight slope and leave it. The car parked behind gives it a gentle nudge getting out of a tight space,and drives off, an unwitting and unknown party. The handbrake cable snaps (its not a design fault) and the car gently starts to roll down the road gathering pace. It gets up a fair pace, mounts the pavement, and runs over a woman and child leaving them a smear on the wall. Horrific
Is the insurance company of my insured car really going to refuse to pay out damages becuase "it wasnt our drivers fault"?
------
< Ulla>
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 04/12/2007 at 13:45
|
From personal experience:
I was in a queue of traffic at a standstill. A car coming the other way was glanced into me. The car that pushed them into me was never traced. The claim was settled by the car that hit me.
Sounds to me like a very similar situation. My insurer's explanation was that "we claim off the person who hit you. Who they claim off is their business".
I think you should be pushing you insurance company to enforce their claim against the insurer of the vehicle that damaged yours.
V
|
|
Thats a claim from an injured person and a no win no fee lawyer would be on the case very quickly.
|
|
Did your Dad pay for legal cover? The simple solution is to contact the providers of that cover, and ask if they can pursue the claim against Car B. Your insurers may be correct, but that doesn't mean you have no chance of compensation.
|
A true example that happened to me in Manchester back in the late '70's...
One sunday morning an elderly chap driving along the road I lived in had some sort of seizure. He nearly knocked a paperboy over, smashed into three cars including mine. All the damaged cars were legally parked. My car was a lovely Singer Vogue, insured third party, now a write-off.
Plod take the old boy to court and his insurance company won't do anything until the court case. I went to watch the case being conducted. Plod's lawyer was some young chap in a tatty tweed jacket with elbow patches, the insurance company had a swish team from London, all manicures and white teeth. The swish lawyers then haul up some medical expert who stated that the driver had no previous history of seizures, it was a one-off and was impossible to tell if it would happen again. The magistrates then decide that the driver was not at fault as he couldn't have known about the seizure. His insurance company then say they won't pay as he wasn't at fault. Tweed jacket caves in. End of case. Said driver walks away scot-free and amazingly with his driving licence, me and the other owners have crumpled cars.
I've hated insurance companies ever since. :-)
|
Said driver walks away scot-free and amazingly with his driving licence me and the other owners have crumpled cars.
Perhaps that was complicated by the legal proceedings, but my Dad's car was written off, while parked, by being crashed into by a driver having a heart attack and the drivers insurance paid out without a problem.
|
I park my car on a slight slope and leave it.
Assuming you park it as per Highway Code:
park close to the kerb and apply the handbrake firmly
select a forward gear and turn your steering wheel away from the kerb when facing uphill
select reverse gear and turn your steering wheel towards the kerb when facing downhill
use ?park? if your car has an automatic gearbox
|
>> I park my car on a slight slope and leave it. Assuming you park it as per Highway Code: park close to the kerb and apply the handbrake firmly select a forward gear and turn your steering wheel away from the kerb when facing uphill select reverse gear and turn your steering wheel towards the kerb when facing downhill use ?park? if your car has an automatic gearbox
I said a slight slope (section 239) not a hill (section 252) therefore I have met my legal obligations.
------
< Ulla>
|
|
Hello Ruperts Trooper Can you read/understand simple English? If so read my post again and maybe you will see a difference between what you think I said and what I actually said. Hope that helps.
Yes jbif I can read/understand English and what you actually said - I was making a connected point about the complexity of legislation.
Sorry, I didn't realise I didn't qualify for your club, yet.
|
The insurance companies stance in the original post seems pefectly reasonable - the difference in some other cases mentioned is there was a driver at the controls of the car causing the damage, and parked cars handbrake cables don't break when nudged by another vehicle.
The OP's father could make a claim here:
www.mib.org.uk/MIB/en/Claims/UK/Uninsured/GFproced...m
|
|
Which still leaves my hypothetical point, in what circumstances can an unoccupied car be liable for anything, if parked entirely legally and without negligence?
|
Which still leaves my hypothetical point in what circumstances can an unoccupied car be liable for anything if parked entirely legally and without negligence?
What do you hope to gain by asking the same question over and over?
|
>> >> What do you hope to gain by asking the same question over and over?
I thought someone might know the definitive answer!
We have had two apparently authenticated responses here
1) you have a claim against the vehicle that hit yours - who they claim off is their affair,
and
2) you can only claim against the ultimate perpetrator.
I thought one purpose of insurance was to guard against eventualities that might be inadvertantly caused by one's agency even though entirely blameless. This view appears to have been refuted, but leaves in doubt scenarios such as the "spontaneous fire" case.
|
I thought someone might know the definitive answer!
There is never a definitive answer in anything legal - and, even if there appears to be at one point in time, it can be overturned at a later date. Thats why there are lots of rich lawyers!
|
Cliff, what if prior to parking car legally owner had fitted a new electrical item eg radio but didn't do it correctly. This causes electrics to short, car goes on fire and damages adjacent cars?
Do I win the competition ? :)
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
making a connected point about the complexity of legislation.
Ruperts T - that is why I said "those responsible for drafitng the law to give you chapter and verse".
Also, your point "Elected representatives can't stick to their own simple rules " - they really can but they want you to believe that they didn't because it was all due to some simple oversight or misunderstanding. And after all, we, the Great British Public elect them.
>>One sunday morning an elderly chap driving along the road I lived in had some sort of seizure.
The case raised by Nick is explained by this:
www.roadsidelawyer.co.uk/advice/what-you-need-to-k...t
Accidents caused by sudden illness
If an accident occurs because a driver has become ill, for example, through a stroke or heart attack, they will not be prosecuted for the way they were driving.
|
Thanks for all the replies so far....
He does indeed have "Legal Expenses Insurance" as I insisted on it.
We have had an assessor view the vehicle and it has been deemed as "beyond economical repair" due to its age (S) and its high miles (210k)
I notice that some people think we should INSIST that the insurance co. pursue the vehicle which was shunted into my fathers car, and then the prob becomes theirs, and not ours.
We are just waiting for the insurance Co. to re-assess the vehicle with a view to a price, only issue I guess is that he loses his XS (135.00) and higher premiums for a while ?
I think if the offer is sensible (I doubt it?) my father may just accept for a quiet life!
Will now re-ask the question to my fathers insurance company as to why can they not pass the cost forward to the vehicle which was shunted into him, and leave them to claim from insurance bureau ?
Cheers again, will let you know !
|
|
Hey scruffythedog188, do you have an update as the exactly the same thing happened to me last night. 3 cars parked in a line - Punto - Astra & my car, a Rover. Ford Ka (possibly stolen, police still making enquiries) smashes into Punto which shunts the Astra into my car. My insurers (Admiral) referred it to their legal dept but won't pursue my claim with the Astras insurers as it wasn't their fault. We have no details of the Ford Ka so far. I was always under the impression that the insurers claim off the car that hit you who then go further up the chain to recover the money. Rather annoying.
|
While I'm not an expert in insurance, but this is my understanding.
You insurer can claim from another "person" and not "object". The "car" is an object and the "driver" is the person, who is responsible for his act. Empty car is an object with presence of its owner (person). So, that car can't be held responsible! It is the driver of the car which shunted is responsible!
This is risk you need to take when you insure only for Third Party - as you have literally know cover for you own damage unless the other party has his own insurance (from which you can claim your damage)
When an object is damaged by natural calamity, God is considered responsible for that. Theoretically your insurer could claim compensation from God but they won't do that. So, again unless you are comprehensive, you end up bearing your own cost (of course, you'll lose your NCB under comprehensive cover).
If an unoccupied car hits a pedestrian and he gets hurt, it is his life insurance/illness cover which will bear the cost of treatment.
Again, if you don't have life cover for you that's a risk you're taking.
Ultimately we must remember these rules
[1] It is your responsibility that you have proper insurance coverage
[2] If other party is God, you'll lose your NCB
[3] Insurance is a business not a charity, so they will try to minimize payment unless they are forced by law
Edited by movilogo on 18/01/2008 at 12:52
|
Quite simply claim off the insurance of the car that struck yours, not the one that made it hit yours, as you did not see it happen and have evidence of the car that caused the damage.
Insist that yours and their insurance company sorts out any other claims from the appropriate people.
Having said that because of the value, you are not likely to get a repair, just a payout. But if you lose NCB or excess because of it then claim that back from the insurance of the car that struck yours.
In a big pile up accident with lots of vehicles invovlved, each claim is sorted as who hit who and acted on accordingly. This is the same but on a smaller scale. Its not all passed back to the last driver at the scene who was involved!
How do you know (for fact) that any other vehicle was involved?
Do not be fobbed off!
|
Where is RLBS when we need him for the definitive answers to all these questions????
Happy losing NCB (NOT) Phil I
|
|
Update - The ford Ka was owned by a car rental company which was taken for a joyride by their valeter and some of his mates. The Police have nicked him so the question now is - is the car rental company now liable for the damage given their employee took the keys and went for a spin or will they say it was technically stolen so none of their business? Talk about getting complicated.....
|
|
It doesn't matter really, as the car rental co. won't benefit from the adverse publicity if they refuse to pay up. My guess is you'll get a cheque from them direct, and I'd start right away summing up the repair/replacement costs etc., and finding out who is the person who will authorise such a payment, and making direct written contact with them.
|
Section 143 (1) (a) RTA 1988 states:
"A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act."
Section 145 (3) (a) RTA 1988 states:
Must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road in Great Britain.
For insurance purposes USES also means KEEPS - a vehicle which is parked on a road therefore must be covered by insurance.
Therefore I would argue that it should be still possible to claim from the owner of a vehicle.
However there does seem to be conflict between the requirements of the RTA and Civil Law in respect of whether it should be proved that in some way the driver was negligent.
I have dealt with a case of someone who died at the wheel and crashed into some parked cars. The insurance company refused to pay because the driver could not have reasonably foreseen that he was going to die, therefore was not negligent.
It is a BIG hole in the law. It seems wrong but has never been plugged to my knowledge.
From my experience in a multiple shunt the claim should be made from the car that actually hit yours and then it works backward. In a damage only with no identified driver who caused the initial impact the MIB will not entertain.
|
|
The problem I have is that the legal dept of my insurance company is not persuing my case at present because they say my claim is with the owners of the Ford Ka and not the Astra. I have done a search on the internet and there doesn't appear to be any defintive information on this point. some says claim off the car that hit you , others say claim off the car that caused it. Hopefully when I get the details of the owners of the Ford Ka, my Insurance company can get their act together.
|
I have dealt with a case of someone who died at the wheel and crashed into some parked cars. The insurance company refused to pay because the driver could not have reasonably foreseen that he was going to die therefore was not negligent. It is a BIG hole in the law. It seems wrong but has never been plugged to my knowledge.
Doesn't seem like a big hole in the law to me. Forget insurance for a minute - if you suffer some harm or loss, and it is somebody else's fault, then you have a claim against them. If it's not their fault, you haven't. The damage to the OP's Dad's car is no more the fault of the Astra's owner than it is the Op's Dad's; ergo Dad has no claim against the Astra owner.
Undoubtedly it was the fault of the valeter driving the Astra, against whom it should be possible to enforce a claim. Next question, was he insured? If yes, then things should end happily; if not, then the OP's Dad will have to decide whether it's worth pursuing the Ka driver. If the OP's Dad has legal cover, his insurers might well do this for him now that the culprit has been identified (they did for me in similar circs though to no good effect. The end result was a repair on my comp insurance and increased premiums).
If you want to be insured for all risks you have to pay for it yourself - i.e. fully comp.
|
Sorry dont agree. We do pay to cover ourselves against all eventualities because we have to. But how can it be right that you as a completely innocent party have to pay for the actions of someone else?? And we do pay because any claim will load our premiums.
Section 170 RTA 1988 - Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents
(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which?
(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that motor vehicle, or
(b) damage is caused?
(i) to a vehicle other than that motor vehicle or a trailer drawn by that motor vehicle, or
(ii) to an animal other than an animal in or on that motor vehicle or a trailer drawn by that motor vehicle, or
(iii) to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.
Thats the definition of an accident. "OWING TO THE PRESENCE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE...."
Criminal Law accepts that the vehicle that causes the damage is responsible. It states that the vehicle must have in place a policy of insurance that covers third party risks.
So why then, when that car hits yours is not there reason for a claim whatever the condition of the driver????
|
Quick answer to original question.
Insurance covers you for your liabilities.
English tort law makes you liable if you're at fault (this isn't meant to be a full Tort Law lecture, btw).
The owner of the car which was shunted into yours wasn't at fault,
therefore has no liability,
therefore his insurers are quite right in refusing to pay.
If you don't have fully comp insurance then you'd need to be making contact with the MIB for a claim against an untraced driver.
Edited by GroovyMucker on 19/01/2008 at 15:23
|
Unless there is injury MIB wont entertain a claim for an untraced driver.
|
|
.
Edited by pendulum on 19/01/2008 at 15:33
|
Unless there is injury MIB wont entertain a claim for an untraced driver.
Don't know where you get that idea.
Link here: tinyurl.com/3yfv2v
|
Ok I'll be more specific.
Link: tinyurl.com/2kqa4l
There it states that in the case of a damage only hit and run the offending vehicle must be identified before the MIB will entertain a claim.
If the offending vehicle is identified then the owner/driver should be able to be identified and therefore there would be a claim against that person. If they were insured then their own insurance should foot the bill. If not then the MIB should entertain the claim.
|
|
|
|
