Apologies for the vague details so far but I am intrigued by the following:
My friends had an accident in France in summer. A car side swiped them on autoroute, their car somersaulted, hospitalised, holiday ruined etc. They gave statements to the police and insurance companies, as did other witnesses who stopped to this effect but all reports are now in and police have been unable to trace other driver, no CCTV etc so is going to have to go down as a claim against his own insurance.
Now this was obviously not the outcome they expected or wanted, as they had hoped to be able to claim off the other driver for compensation for injuries, time off work, etc etc.
They have now been advised, (and this is where the vagueness comes in as I am unsure as to its source), that as he was driving, his wife, his daughter and daughter's friend who were all in the car can claim against him and his insurance for the compensation.
Is this correct? Especially as they have all given written statements saying that it was caused by another car hitting them and therefore not his fault?
Anyone got any knowledge on this subject?
|
his wife, his daughter and daughter's friend who were all in the car can claim against him and his insurance for the compensation.
yes they can. They are passengers and injured third parties. It happens a lot.
|
|
It does not need to be his fault for a claim to be made. Take the scenario of a car busting into flames and injuring people inside/outside the car. Perhaps no-ones fault, yet the risk is covered by a comprehensive/TPFT policy.
|
Take the scenario .. yet the risk is covered by a comprehensive/TPFT policy.
Is that true?
|
Is that true?
A pedestrian or a child on a bike could fall against your locked car parked on the road outside your house and claim too.
|
A pedestrian or a child on a bike could fall against your locked car parked on the road outside your house and claim too.
Sure they can claim if they are so inclined. But will they succeed?
What about the concept of proving negligence?
|
What about the concept of proving negligence?
You neglected to park your property on your own land? Parked on the public highway a car has to be legal and within the law at all times (not just the day of the MOT)
|
|
|
|
Is this correct? >>
Yes.
Especially as they have all given written statements saying that it was caused by another car hitting them and therefore not his fault? >>
To succeed in their claim, surely the party from whom they are claiming has to be shown to have been responsible [or the party admitting fault and/or the insurance company deciding not to challenge question of fault]. The husband [and/or his insurance company] surely will try to use the Police statements to dispute/disprove their liability.
It would be interesting to know what the husband is saying now - is he admitting it was his fault? And are the family at risk of being charged by the French Police for making false declarations?
|
Both driver and passengers are still sticking to their original version of events, thus I was unsure as to whether his ins co would refuse the claim based on his acceptance that he was not at fault.
His wife is very uneasy about submitting a claim against her husband but there again she feels she wants compensation somehow or another, they have lost wages etc and her daughter totally missed out on her full school holidays through attending hospitals / dentists etc.
|
Both driver and passengers are still sticking to their original version of events thus I was unsure as to whether his ins co would refuse the claim based on his acceptance that he was not at fault.
Makes no difference who is at fault. They are third parties, its up to the drivers insurance to pay up and then claim against the driver at fault's insurance. If they cant find him - thats tough.
His wife is very uneasy about submitting a claim against her husband but there again she feels she wants compensation somehow or another they have lost wages etc and her daughter totally missed out on her full school holidays through attending hospitals / dentists etc.
Understandable but If I were the husband I would encourage my wife to claim. Its her right.
|
Makes no difference who is at fault.
Presumably that means that all 3rd party insurance cover has similar provisions to this:
www.horacemann.com/products/auto/auto-coverages.as...x
"2. Uninsured motorist coverage
This coverage protects you, your family, and passengers in your car against losses caused by an at-fault driver who has no liability coverage or by a hit-and-run driver.
Who is covered?
You and relatives living at your residence
Covered passengers
4. Medical payments/Personal injury protection coverage
This coverage protects you, your family, and passengers in your car against losses regardless of who was at fault. In addition, you and your covered relatives are protected in the event you are pedestrians injured in an accident. Whether you have medical payments coverage depends on the state in which you live.
Who is covered?
You and relatives living at your residence
Covered passengers
|
|
|
|
If it had been in the Uk the claim would have been against the MIB Fund.
Is there an equivalent fund in France?
|
If it had been in the Uk the claim would have been against the MIB Fund.
Normally only as insurer of last resort - in the case in the OP they would expect the drivers insurance to pay out.
|
|
|
|
Is the husbands greater duty to fighting the case with his insurance company - or in facilitating money into the family to his wife and daughter?
To put it another way - given that everything owned is supposed to be 50/50 with a spouse - wouldn`t he be entitled to some of that money himself?
I suppose it would all go to pay medical expenses and so on but is it a comfortable moral position? and what if the payout greatly exceeds expenses?
I know we couldn`t do that to each other - as presented....
Edited by oilrag on 06/01/2009 at 11:26
|
I believe the passengers in your car are second (not third parties) if that makes any difference. But IMHO 'comprehensive' insurance means just that and any insured against and provable claims should be covered. Read the small print.
|
The comprehensive policy means you claim your own damage even if it is your fault.
Although it will go against your history anyway. But the damage your friend's family faced, it's worth claiming off insurance and not bother about losing NCB.
|
|
|
"I believe the passengers in your car are second (not third parties)"
That's not actually correct. In insurance terms the Insured is the first party , the Insurer is the second party and the the person with the legal claim against the Insured is the third party.
Legally passengers in the car, whether related or not are third parties and the Insurance will protect the Insured against any claim they may have against the Insured.
It is perfectly possible to sue your spouse for negligence. At one time, many years ago, it was possible for Insurers to exclude liability to passengers but that is now illegal
Edited by CGNorwich on 06/01/2009 at 14:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but this looks the most awful nonsense to me. Of course he & his family can't just change their stories and pretend he was at fault, after saying he wasn't. Either his policy covers personal injury and consequentials to himself and passengers or it doesn't.
OP might also tell his friend that, if the case goes under French law, it will take years to settle and the damages will be derisory in English terms.
|
A friend of mine, about 10 years ago was driving his wifes car. He was insured as a second driver.
He reversed over his daughter, on his own driveway causing severe injuries and learning difficulties.
Wife sued husband on 6y/o daughters behalf.
Wifes insurance policy paid compensation of quite a few hundreds of thousand pounds. The money paid for special education, transport, help with care etc.
|
He reversed over his daughter
That's a different point though - it was his fault.
In the original question it wasn't the Dad's fault - the guilty party drove off and was never identified.
|
SQIn the original question it wasn't the Dad's fault - the guilty party drove off and was never identified.
Matters not - the child was as much a third party as the passengers in the insured car.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 08/01/2009 at 00:29
|
My understanding is that you can claim against your spouse if you have fully comprehensive insurance, but not with TPFT.
|
thats not the case. TPFT will pay out to spouses injured in car.
|
|
Basically 'cos the spouse is the third party.
|
|
OK. I just remeber reading something along those lines when I took out my policy. Perehaps the law in Northern Ireland is different.
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback and info, I have passsed this onto my friends and I will keep you updated of any progeress.
|
|
|
|
