Car insurance settled claim against driver without communication

[gman]

Some insurance companies do, I used to work for Aviva, and they would quite aggressively pursue fraudulent claimants. They should all, but some choose to just settle the claims as quickly as possible.

I thought it was the pensions side you worked with?

Aviva were probably the worst in my experience dealing with their fleet policies.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I thought it was the pensions side you worked with?

Aviva were probably the worst in my experience dealing with their fleet policies.

I worked in pensions for a few years, training out regulatory changes and liaising with HMRC.

But when I moved into IT as a software engineer I worked on both sides of the business as my department supported both the General Insurance and Life side of things.

I didn't work on any of the commercial or fleet stuff though, just personal on the insurance side.

 

[Gremlin]

She has already paid the excess having had the claim gone against her. Getting a pay out on her own vehicle would have reduced the amount she would have paid out.

Unless things have changed and my policy certainly hasn't, excess only apply to claims the insured makes for their own damage, unless it's some obscure cheap company I have never known there to be an excess to be applied to a third party's damage

 

[shapeshifter]

To my knowledge the only chance of taking control over wether the insurance company pays out to the TP is to take control of the claim ones self.
That means informing the insurance of the colision and stating that the notification is for information only as per terms of the policy and state "I will handle this claim myself".
For small claims it is a feasable method of dealing cheaply with a colision especially when the car/s are old bangers.

In an "I will handle the claim myself" one has the benefit of disputing liability and the damage caused and can just say at the end of the day " I am offering X and that's it take it or leave it" which then means the TP or their insurer(who is looking to avoid costs as we know) has to take it or go to the small claims court with all the pre action protocols that go with it, is it worth it?

It's the lack of control over the situation that cause the problem.

 

[nilagin]

You have driven for 40 years and involved in a few accidents?

Okay, have you actually worked behind the scene? My previous employer is a panel solicitor for companies such as Zurich, Aviva, AXA, Tesco etc etc.

What you know as a driver is not what it is like in the office.

You worked for a solicitor who works with insurance companies. Yet you don't have a clue as to the basic service an insurance company provides as part of it's cover.
I have had experience of insurance companies trying to wriggle out of similar to above and the outcome has always been in my favour. Just because some people aren't aware they can fight it just means insurance companies can get away with malpractice and offer a poor service.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You worked for a solicitor who works with insurance companies. Yet you don't have a clue as to the basic service an insurance company provides as part of it's cover.
I have had experience of insurance companies trying to wriggle out of similar to above and the outcome has always been in my favour. Just because some people aren't aware they can fight it just means insurance companies can get away with malpractice and offer a poor service.

I am just telling you the reality and how it works, i am not saying it is right/wrong and what you want to do about it that's up to you.

 

[nilagin]

Unless things have changed and my policy certainly hasn't, excess only apply to claims the insured makes for their own damage, unless it's some obscure cheap company I have never known there to be an excess to be applied to a third party's damage

Depends on the risk of the driver. A young driver, someone with little driving experience or someone with a record of multiple fault claims can have 3rd party damage included in their excess.

 

[Gremlin]

Depends on the risk of the driver. A young driver, someone with little driving experience or someone with a record of multiple fault claims can have 3rd party damage included in their excess.

Possibly, but apart from being a young driver, I haven't seen any mention of the person in this case paying out to the third party personally, perhaps you could show where it states the OP has said this

 

[nilagin]

Possibly, but apart from being a young driver, I haven't seen any mention of the person in this case paying out to the third party personally, perhaps you could show where it states the OP has said this

It doesn't. It was an assumption. Regardless of which the insurance company still didn't take full details of the incident from their client.

 

[JonathanRyan]

You pay an insurance premium to cover the car and represent you. They are obligated to act on your behalf and in your best interests.

Not really. Insurance companies must act in "utmost good faith" (and so must their insureds) but they aren't required to act "in your best interests" and you certainly don't hire them to "represent you".

When you pay a premium you are buying a guarantee that they will pay all your liabilities for third party damage. You may also buy a guarantee that they will cover some or all of the damage to your own vehicle if you choose to claim. It really is up to them how they deal with the third party.

Depends on the risk of the driver. A young driver, someone with little driving experience or someone with a record of multiple fault claims can have 3rd party damage included in their excess.

I'm not entirely sure that would be legal. You need to insure against 3rd party costs to drive on UK roads. That normally means *all* third party costs so the excess doesn't apply. It's possible that an insurer could require a particularly "risky" driver to indemnify them against a portion of the 3rd party costs but that's a slightly different thing. The insurer would be liable and then have to attempt to recover the money from their customer. Otherwise the insured could simply refuse to pay a portion of the damage.

BTW Google says a 2005 Ford Ka can be bought for about £400 so write off value might be £350 - £450 less excess. For that the insurer would keep the car so yeah, if it's still safe to drive then really not "worth" claiming for.

 

[shapeshifter]

You worked for a solicitor who works with insurance companies. Yet you don't have a clue as to the basic service an insurance company provides as part of it's cover.
I have had experience of insurance companies trying to wriggle out of similar to above and the outcome has always been in my favour. Just because some people aren't aware they can fight it just means insurance companies can get away with malpractice and offer a poor service.

So how did you or do you get round the fact that a TP can just go to MID and obtain your insurnce company details and submit a claim without your knowledge. IE the common trick now is to say at the side of the road "there is no claim or we can sort it out without insurance involvement", "no need to bother with phots mate" Then only to find the TP has gone behined your back with a huge claim. This is happening a lot now (caused by the ability to pay £4.50 and obtain details of a persons insurance comapany).

Your insurance company will contact you if you have not informed them BUT if they so chose they can as per terms and conditions of the policy " handle any claim as we see fit". ? What can one do ,it is going on all the time! It's reguarly mentioned on other motoring forums. People playing up something rotten!

I would prefer it as it used to be which was you could handle any claim yourself if you so chose but it looks to me as though that option has or is dying away.

If you know of any law/ regulation that prevents an insurance company settling with a TP behined ones back please post it.

 

[nilagin]

Not really. Insurance companies must act in "utmost good faith" (and so must their insureds) but they aren't required to act "in your best interests" and you certainly don't hire them to "represent you".

When you pay a premium you are buying a guarantee that they will pay all your liabilities for third party damage. You may also buy a guarantee that they will cover some or all of the damage to your own vehicle if you choose to claim. It really is up to them how they deal with the third party.

FCA handbook https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAPegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2Brb0K6dK9k5BwlS5S2pya clearly states a car insurance company must collect all relevant data before processing a claim. That includes taking down their clients full account of an accident, rather than just the notification of being involved in an accident. They are also required to keep their client of how the claim is progressing.

 

[shapeshifter]

FCA handbook https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAPegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2Brb0K6dK9k5BwlS5S2pya clearly states a car insurance company must collect all relevant data before processing a claim. That includes taking down their clients full account of an accident, rather than just the notification of being involved in an accident. They are also required to keep their client of how the claim is progressing.

That is interesting, nice one.

Do you know if there is anything in there that can stop the insurance company taking over the handling of a claim?

 

[nilagin]

So how did you or do you get round the fact that a TP can just go to MID and obtain your insurnce company details and submit a claim without your knowledge. IE the common trick now is to say at the side of the road "there is no claim or we can sort it out without insurance involvement", "no need to bother with phots mate" Then only to find the TP has gone behined your back with a huge claim. This is happening a lot now (caused by the ability to pay £4.50 and obtain details of a persons insurance comapany).

Your insurance company will contact you if you have not informed them BUT if they so chose they can as per terms and conditions of the policy " handle any claim as we see fit". ? What can one do ,it is going on all the time! It's reguarly mentioned on other motoring forums. People playing up something rotten!

I would prefer it as it used to be which was you could handle any claim yourself if you so chose but it looks to me as though that option has or is dying away.

If you know of any law/ regulation that prevents an insurance company settling with a TP behined ones back please post it.

I have only ever had two incidents where both parties agreed not to go through insurance. The first was a copper doing a mate a favour towing a taxi with a police van. He obviously didn't want to go through insurance and as it was his fault, wasn't in a position to make a claim anyway.
The second time was my fault and I damaged the rear door of a car already covered in dents and not worth repairing, nor the hassle of a claim. We both agreed on a price for a replacement door from a breakers, I paid up and we both signed letters saying that the damage had been paid for and neither of us would be claiming through insurance.
As for unscrupulous people making a claim after agreeing not to at the roadside. There is also nothing to stop them seeing damaged car and noting the registration and making a bogus claim if it is that easy to get hold of insurance details.
But as I have pointed out above, FCA guidelines state an insurance company must keep their client informed of any changes in the progress of a claim. That means they can't settle a claim behind your back. If they do, they can be fined at the very least. If it has caused you a wrongful financial loss, they can also be forced to reimburse you.

 

[nilagin]

That is interesting, nice one.

Do you know if there is anything in there that can stop the insurance company taking over the handling of a claim?

I can't see anything, there is a few references to a representative handling the claim, but it doesn't make it clear whether the representative must be assigned by the insurance company or whether you can do it yourself.
If it is a non fault accident, you can get a credit hire company to process the claim for you rather than your insurance company but the insurance company would still need to be notified of the accident.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/c...-insurance-if-the-accident-wasn-t-your-fault/

 

[shapeshifter]

I have only ever had two incidents where both parties agreed not to go through insurance. The first was a copper doing a mate a favour towing a taxi with a police van. He obviously didn't want to go through insurance and as it was his fault, wasn't in a position to make a claim anyway.
The second time was my fault and I damaged the rear door of a car already covered in dents and not worth repairing, nor the hassle of a claim. We both agreed on a price for a replacement door from a breakers, I paid up and we both signed letters saying that the damage had been paid for and neither of us would be claiming through insurance.
As for unscrupulous people making a claim after agreeing not to at the roadside. There is also nothing to stop them seeing damaged car and noting the registration and making a bogus claim if it is that easy to get hold of insurance details.
But as I have pointed out above, FCA guidelines state an insurance company must keep their client informed of any changes in the progress of a claim. That means they can't settle a claim behind your back. If they do, they can be fined at the very least. If it has caused you a wrongful financial loss, they can also be forced to reimburse you.

Thanks. I will have a read.

 

[shapeshifter]

I can't see anything, there is a few references to a representative handling the claim, but it doesn't make it clear whether the representative must be assigned by the insurance company or whether you can do it yourself.
If it is a non fault accident, you can get a credit hire company to process the claim for you rather than your insurance company but the insurance company would still need to be notified of the accident.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/c...-insurance-if-the-accident-wasn-t-your-fault/

Have you seen this credit hire company lark! It's crazey. £95,000 car hire costs to get an £8000 car repaired.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/what-is-credit-hire/

 

[JonathanRyan]

FCA handbook https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAPegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2Brb0K6dK9k5BwlS5S2pya clearly states a car insurance company must collect all relevant data before processing a claim. That includes taking down their clients full account of an accident, rather than just the notification of being involved in an accident. They are also required to keep their client of how the claim is progressing.

Yeah - they would emphasise the word "relevant". Side damage at a give way is all they need to know whose liability it is.

 

[nilagin]

Yeah - they would emphasise the word "relevant". Side damage at a give way is all they need to know whose liability it is.

But if they have only got that information from the 3rd party and not their own client, they won't have all the information. They never took full details from their own client and that is wrong.
Also wrongly, she wasn't kept informed of developments during the claim.
Had her insurance company actually done their job properly they may have been more concerned about what injuries were actually sustained by the third party to warrant a £8.5k pay out, especially if the KA is still drivable. The pay out for injuries sounds very suspect to me.
Doesn't matter though if insurance companies just roll over and pay out though does it. They just share out the cost with their client and every other insured motorist on the road. You do realise it is around £100 average that people pay extra on their premiums so insurance companies can recoup their losses. That could be just £50 extra if they actually did their jobs properly.

 

[Gremlin]

We don't know what was said when she spoke to her insurer, we know they told her a claim for her car was pointless
but not what else was said during the conversation.
When my daughter was hit head on by a G4S van on a narrow bridge that was her right of way, the driver
said she was speeding !!! Her car was a write off but no one seriously injured, she was nearly at the end of the narrow part, police told her it wasn't her fault, but she still said to me after that she didn't think she was speeding but not sure, I know the road and you seriously can't go through it that fast.
She did hear the driver say to his mate something about being in trouble if there were any more accidents and in fact
he went to one of those no win no claim companies, which held things up for nearly 2 years before it was finalised and
he got nothing, did impact on her insurance to the effect that she couldn't change companies with a claim still outstanding so could have ended up paying a higher premium

 

[nilagin]

We don't know what was said when she spoke to her insurer, we know they told her a claim for her car was pointless
but not what else was said during the conversation

My query isn't about the renewal quote, or the fact they settled without her permission (as is their right). It's regarding the fact they have had absolutely no written statement from her. Nothing. Just that one phone call just after the accident where she reported it. The fact they settled on extremely scant evidence and seemingly haven't even attempted to contact her for a proper statement or for further information

From the OP it is safe to say the insurance company hadn't taken full details of their clients account of the incident.

 

[shapeshifter]

We don't know what was said when she spoke to her insurer, we know they told her a claim for her car was pointless
but not what else was said during the conversation.
When my daughter was hit head on by a G4S van on a narrow bridge that was her right of way, the driver
said she was speeding !!! Her car was a write off but no one seriously injured, she was nearly at the end of the narrow part, police told her it wasn't her fault, but she still said to me after that she didn't think she was speeding but not sure, I know the road and you seriously can't go through it that fast.
She did hear the driver say to his mate something about being in trouble if there were any more accidents and in fact
he went to one of those no win no claim companies, which held things up for nearly 2 years before it was finalised and
he got nothing, did impact on her insurance to the effect that she couldn't change companies with a claim still outstanding so could have ended up paying a higher premium

Why could she not change companies with a claim outstanding? Did her insurance company try and stop her in some way or did she just decide not to change of her own choice?

 

[Gremlin]

Why could she not change companies with a claim outstanding? Did her insurance company try and stop her in some way or did she just decide not to change of her own choice?

At the time she couldn't get a quote from one with her full NCB so the premium would have been far higher then her existing company who didn't penalise her at all, and the uncertainty of pay out on a personal injury claim.
Obviously she would have got the money back when the claim was dropped but decided it was far easier to stay put until all was settled
Really cannot understand the mentality of the third party even trying, when the police had said it was his fault, just shows these claim sharks will take anything on

 

[JonathanRyan]

From the OP it is safe to say the insurance company hadn't taken full details of their clients account of the incident.

Honestly, I'm unclear what more details they could have got. It sounds like she failed to give way and got hit by another vehicle which had right of way. What else would an insurance company need to know?

 

[nilagin]

Honestly, I'm unclear what more details they could have got. It sounds like she failed to give way and got hit by another vehicle which had right of way. What else would an insurance company need to know?

She had given way. Did you not read the bit that says she waited until the road was clear as far as she could possibly see. Or the bit where she said the other car must of been speeding to suddenly appear and fail to brake in time. You are supposed to slow when approaching traffic lights. Lucky it was a car that got hit and not a pedestrian.
On top of that, there are road conditions, weather, time of day, any witnesses, there are plenty of questions that should have been asked.

 

[JonathanRyan]

She had given way. Did you not read the bit that says she waited until the road was clear as far as she could possibly see. Or the bit where she said the other car must of been speeding to suddenly appear and fail to brake in time.

Yeah I saw all that. What I didn't see was any mention of what the lights were doing that allowed 2 vehicles to proceed into each others' path. But even so with offside damage and front on the other it's going to go against the OP's friend every time. Driving into the path of an other vehicle is failing to give way.

Road conditions, weather, time of day are all irrelevant. An independent witness (who under English law can't be related to the driver, must be over 18 and probably shouldn't be in either vehicle - Scottish law is slightly different if it was north of the border) might in some circumstances help - but only for testifying to fact (such as the lights were red) rather than speculation (such as "they must have been going really fast").

 

[nilagin]

Yeah I saw all that. What I didn't see was any mention of what the lights were doing that allowed 2 vehicles to proceed into each others' path. But even so with offside damage and front on the other it's going to go against the OP's friend every time. Driving into the path of an other vehicle is failing to give way.

Road conditions, weather, time of day are all irrelevant. An independent witness (who under English law can't be related to the driver, must be over 18 and probably shouldn't be in either vehicle - Scottish law is slightly different if it was north of the border) might in some circumstances help - but only for testifying to fact (such as the lights were red) rather than speculation (such as "they must have been going really fast").

It doesn't get away from the fact that insurance company hasn't done it's job properly. For the third party to have been paid out £8500 in personal injuries after hitting a car which is still roadworthy raises alarm bells. The client is going to have to suffer higher insurance premiums for 5yrs because her insurance company hasn't done it's job properly in collecting what could have been vital information for them to have not paid out the personal injury claim. As I said before, we all pay extra on premiums because insurance companies just roll over and don't do their job properly. If you think that is perfectly ok, perhaps you'd like to pay the extra £100 I get charged every year on my premium.

 

[Gremlin]

For the third party to have been paid out £8500 in personal injuries after hitting a car which is still roadworthy raises alarm bells.

Is it ?

 

[nilagin]

Is it ?

As the insurance company said it wasn't worth claiming on as it would write it off, it is fairly safe to assume it is. On a vehicle worth £500, replacing and painting a front wing would write it off.

 

[Gremlin]

As the insurance company said it wasn't worth claiming on as it would write it off, it is fairly safe to assume it is. On a vehicle worth £500, replacing and painting a front wing would write it off.

Which would also make it undriveable under the construction and use offences, you really can't assume anything
without confirmation
£8,500 isn't that great an amount in this day and age TBH