Claiming uninsured losses
Iain
the letter.
I think that most of the claim is more or less sorted, so I want now to get
the extra costs that I have had to pay out as a result of the accident, from
the other party. To list these:
- Phone calls (just under £5)
- approx 1/4 tank of petrol left in my written-off car
- Small amount of road tax left
- Hired car (*)
- Difference between rail ticket and normal petrol cost of journey (one way,
as I was lent a car)
- Admin cost to swap car on my insurance.
* This is by far the largest cost - just over £200.
Two months of car hire were paid for by a third party. 7 days after I
received the final cheque from the insurance company I had to return the
hired car. As I was away when the 7 days was up, I had to take the car to
the nearest agency and then re-hire it myself.
I had arranged some of the things a couple of months prior and others
several months prior. All were where a car was absolutely necessary. It
should have been for a longer period, but I was lent a car.
I intend to write to the other party, probably with a copy to his insurance
company, asking them to settle this within a certain period. These are all
actual losses, or costs that I would not have incurred if I would have still
have been able to use my original car.
--
Iain
GP Hardy
"Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote in message
news:8fveds...@mid.individual.net...
I'd have thought that with the exception of the road fund licence, all of
those would be costs settled during the insurance negotiations. The petrol
should be part of the value of the car when it was wrecked. You can claim
back the car tax yourself.
I've successfully negotiated the cost of transferring a registration plate
on two occasions; one a "fault" claim, the other a "none fault" claim.
Mark
IME insurance companies count anything that is not directly related to
the repair of the car (such as phonecalls and fuel) as "uninsured
losses" and make no attempt to recover these costs from the guilty
party.
However I am not sure whether you should attempt to recover these
directly from the other party or their insurer. Probably the former.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Iain
[snip]
> I'd have thought that with the exception of the road fund licence,
> all of those would be costs settled during the insurance
> negotiations. The petrol should be part of the value of the car when
> it was wrecked. You can claim back the car tax yourself.
>
> I've successfully negotiated the cost of transferring a registration
> plate on two occasions; one a "fault" claim, the other a "none fault"
> claim.
Insurance negociations with whom? My insurance company? They have already
told me over the phone that they would not be pursuing the uninsured losses,
unless these would not be classified uninsured losses. I was not told of
any allowance towards the cost of the remaining petrol in the tank. There
was only 15 days' tax left. My insurance company seemed to make themselves
in charge of tax as I was unable to declare SORN when the renewal date came
up anyway, so I did not pursue any reclaim either.
Having thought further, I will not make a 'full and final' settlement
either, because I have heard stories of things like premiums going up even
with no-fault accidents, and I have absolutely no idea whether there will be
other consequential costs or losses.
Had the other insurance company been more responsive, they would have been
financially better off if they have paid the insurance repair bill
(obviously more than a standard repair bill because only new parts would
have been used). And I would have been much happier as well! Silly
people!!
I am also wondering whether to give the other party a limited time, eg. 14
days, for settlement as well?
--
Iain
Ste
> In other posts, it was suggested that I get help from here before writing
> the letter.
>
> I think that most of the claim is more or less sorted, so I want now to get
> the extra costs that I have had to pay out as a result of the accident, from
> the other party. To list these:
> - Phone calls (just under £5)
No problem.
> - approx 1/4 tank of petrol left in my written-off car
Don't forget to deduct from this the petrol that you get in the tank
of your new car, however.
> - Small amount of road tax left
If it was more than a month, then it could (and should have) be
redeemed. Otherwise, claim a pro-rated amount, but again don't forget
to deduct any tax you get with your new car (you may find that you end
up owing *them* money, if your new car comes with 12 months tax, but
the old one had less than a month's tax).
> - Hired car (*)
No problem. There is no expectation, in this day and age, that a car
driver ought to forgo his car for any period of time at all.
> - Difference between rail ticket and normal petrol cost of journey (one way,
> as I was lent a car)
You mean you were forced to pay for a rail ticket before someone lent
you another car? If so, then no problem.
> - Admin cost to swap car on my insurance.
No problem.
> I intend to write to the other party, probably with a copy to his insurance
> company, asking them to settle this within a certain period. These are all
> actual losses, or costs that I would not have incurred if I would have still
> have been able to use my original car.
It is not a question of "probably with a copy to his insurer". The
insurer is the *main* party to write to, and as an afterthought you
may consider copying that letter to the driver himself.
Martin Bonner
> > I intend to write to the other party, probably with a copy to his insurance
> > company, asking them to settle this within a certain period. These are all
> > actual losses, or costs that I would not have incurred if I would have still
> > have been able to use my original car.
>
> It is not a question of "probably with a copy to his insurer". The
> insurer is the *main* party to write to, and as an afterthought you
> may consider copying that letter to the driver himself.
Are you sure? In theory the claim is against the driver, and they are
responsible for paying; they may delegate this to the insurance
company, but that is their decision. (In practise of course, sending
a copy to the insurance co saves a potential delay.)
Ian Jackson
Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Are you sure? In theory the claim is against the driver, and they are
>responsible for paying; they may delegate this to the insurance
>company, but that is their decision. (In practise of course, sending
>a copy to the insurance co saves a potential delay.)
Precisely. Also finding the driver's insurer can be awkward.
When I was crashed into by a driver who went through a red light, I
had great difficulty getting their insurers, whose details the driver
had provided me with, to be willing to talk to me at all. They pretty
much refused to deal with me on the grounds that I wasn't a solicitor
or insurance company.
I was trying to give them the opportunity to minimise my loss, by
providing an advance to buy a new bike or organising hire. As it was,
failing to talk to me right away and then stalling when I sent the
driver and them letters, cost them over L500.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ste
> On Sep 23, 7:45 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I intend to write to the other party, probably with a copy to his insurance
> > > company, asking them to settle this within a certain period. These are all
> > > actual losses, or costs that I would not have incurred if I would have still
> > > have been able to use my original car.
>
> > It is not a question of "probably with a copy to his insurer". The
> > insurer is the *main* party to write to, and as an afterthought you
> > may consider copying that letter to the driver himself.
>
> responsible for paying; they may delegate this to the insurance
> company, but that is their decision. (In practise of course, sending
> a copy to the insurance co saves a potential delay.)
The insurer is severally liable in law, and a claim can be commenced
directly against them without involving the driver at all.
Dave
Communication with another party in a claim such as this is frowned on
by the insurance Co's. They assume collusion and sharing of any profits
that can be squeezed out of the claim.
I am in the middle of a claim that could have turned out to be a cash
for crash job. Other party has not come up with any valid insurance for
the car being driven. I was told to cease all communication with the
other driver, almost right from the start.
Dave
GP Hardy
> When I was crashed into by a driver who went through a red light, I
> had great difficulty getting their insurers, whose details the driver
> had provided me with, to be willing to talk to me at all. They pretty
> much refused to deal with me on the grounds that I wasn't a solicitor
> or insurance company.
And yet in the case of my last crash, where the other party failed to yield
because of snow preventing her from stopping, her insurer contacted me
directly and offered to repair my car and sort me out with a hire car. The
eventual bill to them must have been lower than the bill they would
otherwise have received from my insurers.
> I was trying to give them the opportunity to minimise my loss, by
> providing an advance to buy a new bike or organising hire. As it was,
> failing to talk to me right away and then stalling when I sent the
> driver and them letters, cost them over L500.
My other reply to Iain, regarding negotiation with the insurer, was all down
to minimising overall loss. The insurance company is interested in their
total exposure, it's not just the money they give direct to the individual.
The longer they spend arguing, and the more they get personnel in to poke
around a claim, the more it costs them. This can be used to your advantage,
and not just if it's a completely one-sided claim in your favour. As long as
you don't push them too far, there's no reason to acquiesce to their first
offer.
Other factors might come into play, too. I once had a claim
(knock-for-knock) which the loss adjuster wanted to deal with quickly
because he was going on holiday. I brought up the subject of the cost of
getting the registration transferred. My argument was that it wasn't an
uninsured loss because the company knew (by virtue of taking a call to be
told the plates had changed) that the plates were on the car, and nowhere in
the policy were they excluded. He could have argued, he might have won, but
he wanted it sorted. By introducing something that might have dragged it
out, I possessed a little lever to prise a bit more from the claim. In the
end, we agreed that he could add £150 to the value of the car, and in return
I would deal with the transfer of the plates. Negotiation; as I said in the
other post.
Doctor Dave
This is incorrect. The other driver is liable to the OP and the other
driver's insurance is liable to the other driver.
In practice as a litigant in person you can probably get away with it
by pleading ignorance and if it gets to Court the other insurance
company will probably agree to the claim being modified.
Ste
> On 24 Sep, 16:20, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 Sep, 12:40, Martin Bonner <martinfro...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 7:45 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I intend to write to the other party, probably with a copy to his insurance
> > > > > company, asking them to settle this within a certain period. These are all
> > > > > actual losses, or costs that I would not have incurred if I would have still
> > > > > have been able to use my original car.
>
> > > > It is not a question of "probably with a copy to his insurer". The
> > > > insurer is the *main* party to write to, and as an afterthought you
> > > > may consider copying that letter to the driver himself.
>
> > > Are you sure? In theory the claim is against the driver, and they are
> > > responsible for paying; they may delegate this to the insurance
> > > company, but that is their decision. (In practise of course, sending
> > > a copy to the insurance co saves a potential delay.)
>
> > The insurer is severally liable in law, and a claim can be commenced
> > directly against them without involving the driver at all.
>
> This is incorrect.
This really ought to be read as a preamble to your own post, rather
than a reply to mine.
> The other driver is liable to the OP and the other
> driver's insurance is liable to the other driver.
>
> In practice as a litigant in person you can probably get away with it
> by pleading ignorance and if it gets to Court the other insurance
> company will probably agree to the claim being modified.
I quote the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations
2002:
"the entitled party may, without prejudice to his right to issue
proceedings against the insured person, issue proceedings against the
insurer which issued the policy of insurance relating to the insured
vehicle, and that insurer shall be directly liable to the entitled
party to the extent that he is liable to the insured person."
al
Hi
What about the costs of looking for a new car? time and petrol etc
trawling around different showrooms - can amount to a great deal if
time is chargeable.
Al
Doctor Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting, but the obvious question is the extent to which those
regulations are recognised by British Courts.
I quoted what a judge said to me in an actual case I brought which
essentially followed the line suggested by you (and which was accepted
by the insurance company's barrister unquestioningly).
Percy Picacity
news:33f0e837-06e3-4609-83db-247c1672d171
@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.co
m:
> On 25 Sep, 16:30, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>> > The other driver is liable to the OP and the other
>> > driver's insurance is liable to the other driver.
>>
>> > In practice as a litigant in person you can probably get away
>> > with it by pleading ignorance and if it gets to Court the other
>> > insurance company will probably agree to the claim being
>> > modified.
>>
>> I quote the European Communities (Rights against Insurers)
>> Regulations 2002:
>>
>> "the entitled party may, without prejudice to his right to issue
>> proceedings against the insured person, issue proceedings against
>> the insurer which issued the policy of insurance relating to the
>> insured vehicle, and that insurer shall be directly liable to the
>> entitled party to the extent that he is liable to the insured
>> person."- Hide quote
> d text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Interesting, but the obvious question is the extent to which those
> regulations are recognised by British Courts.
>
> I quoted what a judge said to me in an actual case I brought which
> essentially followed the line suggested by you (and which was
> accepted by the insurance company's barrister unquestioningly).
>
But was your case a motor insurance case?
--
Percy Picacity
Doctor Dave
> Doctor Dave <dave-christop...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
The text posted by ste don't specifically mention types of case. Mine
however, to answer your question, was a motor insurance case.
Ste
Courts are often reluctant to make awards for time, unless it actually
and necessarily involved lost earnings. This is most common with the
self-employed, while employed earners will usually be expected to
consume a few days of their holiday allowance with no recompense.
Courts typically view car accidents as being a fact of life, and quite
correctly take the view that claim values would grow without bounds if
people were able to claim significant amounts for lost leisure time
and subjective inconvenience.
Also, yes you can claim petrol, but expect extreme scrutiny if this
cost item adds up to high-double figures or more in total.
Ste
Why wouldn't they be recognised? The regulations are British
legislation.
> I quoted what a judge said to me in an actual case I brought which
> essentially followed the line suggested by you (and which was accepted
> by the insurance company's barrister unquestioningly).
I see. If the case you refer to is more recent than 2002, and if you
did not specifically plead them in your claim, then perhaps the Judge
was merely not aware of the new regulations. What the Judge said to
you is correct as a matter of general principle, in that the driver is
liable to you as tortfeasor, and his insurer is liable to him in
contract, but motor insurance claims are one exception (the idea being
to promote the free movement of vehicles across Europe), and claims
against the insurers of insolvent parties are another.
Ste
Admittedly, I probably should have made that more clear in the first
place.
Martin Bonner
Completely different situation. While your insurance company is
involved, I would expect them to do all the talking from your side.
If you negotiate as well, things are likely to get very complicated.
When your insurance company has finished, and has failed to pursue for
uninsured losses, you (or the OP) wish to do so. /Then/ your claim is
against the other driver (not directly against their insurance
company), and should be sent to them.
Dave
Thanks for that, so I can claim back my insurance excess from the OP. I
didn't know that.
Dave
Percy Picacity
news:41e6170c-122c-4049-9e84-c397f634bc52
@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.co
m:
The other party's insurer is no less liable for your uninsured
losses than for your insured losses. There is no excess on third
party claims! It is still highly desirable to deal with the other
party's insurer, and as discussed above it may not be technically
necessary to specifically include him in the claim, though it may be
a good idea.
--
Percy Picacity
Iain
I phoned up my insurance company again, and, unlike before, they suggested I
send the details to them. So whether they will now accept them, or say no
again, I shall have to see.
Thanks for all the comments, and I shall let you know what happens, and
whether I shall have to go to the other party's insurance company or not.
--
Iain