Say you are in an accident, and you think it is your fault , you say you will settle up by making a cash payment - does this action actually invalidate your insurance.
eg if you then changed your mind and said you would put it through your insurance and the insurance company were made aware of the cash offer can they reject your claim?
It can invalidate your insurance - it will normally be a specific condition, eg 'you must not admit liability for or negotiate to settle any claim without our written permission'.
Most punters are not aware of the general priciples of legal liability and negligence, and not qualified to assess their degree of fault, particularly immediately after an accident. Whether the insurer actually repudiates, may depend on the extent to which their negotiating position has actually been compromised.
Toom
Presumably a statement admitting liability blurted out by someone in a state of shock would be of minimal evidential value.
No. Absolutely not.
No. Assuming you are talking about a motor claim, they are obliged to meet the claim. In very rare scenarios they will require their policyholder to reimburse them if there has been a breach of policy terms that seriously compromises their position. But in the circumstances you describe, that wouldn't happen.
They might be obliged to deal with the claim, but would they be obliged to meet it? Are they bound by an admission of liability and an agreement to pay made by their insured without their permission, and where there may actually be reduced or no legal liability? Otherwise would the third parties recourse be against the individual who had agreed to pay in full?
Toom
Under the RTA they would be obliged to deal with any claim from a third party - that, of course, means if the third party establishes liability, the insurers must meet the claim, and if the third party cannot establish liability, the insurers don't have to pay.
They can resile from an admission of liability if they wish to do so - I would be surprised if anyone could find a court judgment in which insurers were refused permission to resile from an admission made by their policyholder. Usually of course they won't resile because there will be at least some liability.
There would, of course, be the option for the insurer, if they agreed the full liability and the amount, to simply pay. Presumably under the RTA avoidance clause obligation, they are only required to meet the actual valid claim, and if they paid in full could make this conditional on the insured reimbursing them any payment, or part thereof, which they would not otherwise have been obliged to pay but for the breach of conditions. Otherwise 'some liability' and their obligation to meet that actual liability under RTA would presumably the insured exposed for the balance.
Toom
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.