Re: Car Insurance - Knock for Knock

In my experience, unless you can prove without doubt that it was'nt your fault (e.g. independent witnesses etc) your shafted and the insurance companues are'nt interested in you just how much money they can save.

Yep. Done this straight away....

I would need a book to contradict some of the misconceptions made in = response to this post. I'll try to keep this as brief as I can and I'll = admit I have been out of insurance claims and law for four years. If = anyone has more contemporary legal or insurance experience I would = welcome his or her input.=20

The knock for knock agreement only operates between insurance = companies to avoid costly disputes over liability. In the simple case of = two private cars that are comprehensively insured both insurers pay for = the damage to the vehicles they insure but make no attempt to recover = the costs whatever their views on liability. If there is some disparity = between the cover provided (i.e. TPO cover or one insurer covering a = commercial vehicle) a partial indemnity clause provides for some payment = to be made but again this is not dependent on liability.=20

The insurance company is not, generally, capable of admitting = liability on behalf of their insured unless this is done formally in a = Defence when proceedings are issued. However it would be a mistake to = try and dictate how they deal with the matter. You would be better off = liaising with them.=20

Accidents involving personal injury and other matters, defined by the = Road Traffic Act, must be reported to the police Immediately or within = any event within 24 hours. If you have not got a good reason for not = doing either you have committed an offence. The former consideration = applies in precedence and the latter is not a convenient alternative.=20

The allowance or otherwise of the NCD is discretionary.=20

Losses not covered by the insurance policy are yours to deal with as = you see fit. If you do decide to commence proceedings for, say a =A350 = excess, make sure you have your insurance company's agreement first. It = is known that the other parties insurance company will pay this in full = especially if they feel that there is some dispute over liability. This = means they create an estoppel meaning that if they have an outlay of say = several thousands they cannot issue proceedings themselves, if they have = no knock for knock agreement, and effectively they will have to bear the = loss. They might also decide to sue you to get the money back.=20

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system

Exactly. You get shafted....

I'd say more then mildly irritating if its not your fault and your insurance premium jumps by a few hundred quid next year !

I would need a book to contradict some of the misconceptions made in response to this post. I'll try to keep this as brief as I can and I'll admit I have been out of insurance claims and law for four years. If anyone has more contemporary legal or insurance experience I would welcome his or her input.

The knock for knock agreement only operates between insurance companies to avoid costly disputes over liability. In the simple case of two private cars that are comprehensively insured both insurers pay for the damage to the vehicles they insure but make no attempt to recover the costs whatever their views on liability. If there is some disparity between the cover provided (i.e. TPO cover or one insurer covering a commercial vehicle) a partial indemnity clause provides for some payment to be made but again this is not dependent on liability.

The insurance company is not, generally, capable of admitting liability on behalf of their insured unless this is done formally in a Defence when proceedings are issued. However it would be a mistake to try and dictate how they deal with the matter. You would be better off liaising with them.

Accidents involving personal injury and other matters, defined by the Road Traffic Act, must be reported to the police Immediately or within any event within 24 hours. If you have not got a good reason for not doing either you have committed an offence. The former consideration applies in precedence and the latter is not a convenient alternative.

The allowance or otherwise of the NCD is discretionary.

Losses not covered by the insurance policy are yours to deal with as you see fit. If you do decide to commence proceedings for, say a 50 excess, make sure you have your insurance company's agreement first. It is known that the other parties insurance company will pay this in full especially if they feel that there is some dispute over liability. This means they create an estoppel meaning that if they have an outlay of say several thousands they cannot issue proceedings themselves, if they have no knock for knock agreement, and effectively they will have to bear the loss. They might also decide to sue you to get the money back.

Well only 45% of the time, AND you don't pay the costs of perpetual disputes.

I.e. you have enough money to fix your own car and stay on the road.

Well sue for the excess.

Then you really would be a victim!

Any claim FROM a third party. OTOH there is nothing to stop you going on the attack (other than the cost and embarrassment if you do this and were at fault...).

What you do need to decide what to do is judgement. Time and again I have heard people tell me tales of accidents where it is clear even from their own telling that it was their own fault (he stopped too suddenly, she didn't even see me, he was going so fast I couldn't see him before I pulled out etc. etc.), but they just can't accept responsibility or that they could err. If you make a mistake and can exercise judgement against yourself at the time you may save yourself and lost NCD later on.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote

That's only if you are someone with "average" experience.

If you happen to be a better risk than average (eg someone in their 50's with >10 years claim-free), then the proportion of the time which you are being "shafted" will rapidly increase from 45%...

insurers will agree

own insured's

ascertain who was at

fault,

(have

would

me

If the 3rd party asks for your insurance details at the time of the accident, you are required by law to give them. If you can't at that time, because you can't remember etc. You must still give them the details ASAP, and if the police are involved, they are free to pass that information on. Conversely, if they don't ask at the time, you are under no obligation to give them the information at all. The police will ask, to ensure you are insured, but they should not pass the details of your insurance, to the 3rd party. If they wish to claim, they have to send the claim to you, and your insurance Co should be told, even if you intend to handle the claim yourself. Mike.

You are required by the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 154 to give details of your insurers to anyone who wishes to make a claim.

Subsection 2 says;

(2) If without reasonable excuse, a person fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) above, or wilfully makes a false statement in reply to any such demand as is referred to in that subsection, he is guilty of an offence.

One thing that never seems to be mentioned is the importance of giving the insurance company notice of proceedingd. It may be accademic in the majority of cases but in some instances it is vital. The wording of the satutory authority is;

(a) in respect of any judgment unless, before or within seven days after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment was given, the insurer had notice of the bringing of the proceedings, or.......

To omit this may make recovering damages from the insurer impossible.

NOT so the pernicious "Third party loss sharing agreements" where your = own insurer gains an interest in minimising your personal injury claim = against a third party.

But how would the insurer attemp to achieve this?

"Chris Lee" wrote

"unless ... the insurer had notice of the bringing of the proceedings" then

Section 151 of the RTA 1988 requires an insurer to satisfy a judgement. = It's a complicated subject but boiled down what I mean is that if you = have given notice and you win your case the insurer has to pay the = damages awarded. If you have not given notice they do not have to pay = anything.=20

But how would the insurer attemp to achieve this?

The insurers agree that they will pool third party losses. I am not sure exactly how it works but it is probably supposed to avoid silly liability disputes e.g. in concertina crashes or where vehicles career of the road after a collision. The injured (or damaged) third has to proceed agains the party that actually hits them and then there is a complicated chain back to the driver at fault. The 3rdPLSA obviates all this.

The side effect is that where there is a substantial personal injury claim and you are pursuing a third party, your own insurers may be paying into the pot even though they would pay nothing to you, and consequently have an interest in reducing the quantum (size) of your claim or even mucking it up altogether.