[qwerty321]

I have a relative who seems to have had a bit of bad luck recently in terms of car accidents but has a query as to the 2nd accident. Ill quickly explain the situation:

Last week he was driving his own Comprehensive covered car, doing a corner reverse when a person cut across the junction opposite and hit the side of his car. The way it has been described to me, it is clearly the fault of the person who cut across, he hasn't admitted liability yet. So a claim has been put in and his car was collected for repair.

In the meanwhile he has borrowed a car from another relative to use whilst his is in the garage. His own insurance covers him to drive another car with Third Party cover. However, yesterday, he was parked and a reversing lorry hit him. He did sound his horn to warn him. However, the lorry driver has admitted liability.

The question is, who does he go to to claim the insurance for the repair on the car he borrowed?
a) The Lorry driver's insurer as liability has been admitted.
b) His own insurer who have provided 3rd party cover (even though he isnt at fault)
c) The insurers of the car that has been borrowed

We are guessing it would be the lorry driver's insurer. They would prefer to settle it without insurance if the lorry company would accept that. Its an old car and the accident caused damaged to a headlight and the bumper. Insurance company would most likely write it off but the owners may like to keep the car.

Sorry if that is confusing, let me know and I will try and clear any points up.

Thanks In Advance!

[Kebabhead]

The answer is b

He needs to contact his own insurance company and inform them of the accident and supply all the necessary details.

His insurance company will then contact the lorry drivers insurance company with regards to a claim

[Honeywell1945]

If I was him I'd let the lorry company cover costs without getting insurers involved . Regardless of fault he will be seen to be a risk with 2 accidents in such a short time , best to keep it to one at the moment .

If you doubt me do an insurance quote online & put in 1 acccident to get a quote , then amend it too 2 accidents .

I've been in a similar situation , I was penalised by higher quotes , wished I'd kept the 2nd one history .

[qwerty321]

Yeah thats a good point.

Also settling outside the insurers would be better all round. The car in the 2nd accident is only worth around £700. The parts and labour for a repair would no doubt write it off.

[Anthony-Howard]

Originally Posted by Honeywell1945

If I was him I'd let the lorry company cover costs without getting insurers involved . Regardless of fault he will be seen to be a risk with 2 accidents in such a short time , best to keep it to one at the moment .

If you doubt me do an insurance quote online & put in 1 acccident to get a quote , then amend it too 2 accidents .

I've been in a similar situation , I was penalised by higher quotes , wished I'd kept the 2nd one history .

I realise that this happens all the time but you are legally obliged to report any accident, regardless of intent to claim, to your insurers within 24 hours unless you can provide mitigating evidence as to why you could not within the 24 hours or the earliest practicable timeframe after the 24 hour period.

As to the insurance quotes it does seem a little unfair especially if not at fault. However the insurance statistics backs up the increase in premiums as to total cost to the insurance companies. I would be pretty damn annoyed myself at paying increased premiums in similar circumstances but I am afraid that sometimes life just isn't fair and you have to just begrudgingly accept it.

I won't even ask how someone in a junction opposite could broadside you unless you were reversing around a corner of a crossroads.......... If this is the case then good luck as right of way is surprisingly ambiguous - This is one area that most of Europe has right unlike us.

Cheers,

Tony.

[qwerty321]

I was a little lax in my description of the junctions. They weren't directly opposite. One was further up the road. Kinda hard to describe without pictures but that isn't the main issue here so we will leave that alone

[boltoa]

Originally Posted by Anthony-Howard

I realise that this happens all the time but you are legally obliged to report any accident, regardless of intent to claim, to your insurers within 24 hours unless you can provide mitigating evidence as to why you could not within the 24 hours or the earliest practicable timeframe after the 24 hour period.

Really? You are legally obliged to report an accident involving an injury to the police within 24hrs. Don't think the law has anything to say about reporting to your insurers. And a quick googling would back that up, although I wait to be corrected (with links, obv ).

Edit: Some insurers will make it a T&C on their contract to report all accidents, but generally with no specific timescale, and it would certainly not be a criminal offence to break this, just a civil one (breach of contract).

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by boltoa

Really? You are legally obliged to report an accident involving an injury to the police within 24hrs. Don't think the law has anything to say about reporting to your insurers. And a quick googling would back that up, although I wait to be corrected (with links, obv ).

Edit: Some insurers will make it a T&C on their contract to report all accidents, but generally with no specific timescale, and it would certainly not be a criminal offence to break this, just a civil one (breach of contract).

As you say it's written in the insurance company's T&C and they can and will null your insurance if you fail to report

Just because the law says you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't

[FZR400RRSP]

Let me get this right.
Are you saying you need to report an accident, even if there are no injuries and both parties exchange details at the scene?

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

Let me get this right.
Are you saying you need to report an accident, even if there are no injuries and both parties exchange details at the scene?

To the insurance company yes - police no

[FZR400RRSP]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

To the insurance company yes - police no

Ah right, got you.
Thanks.

[Anthony-Howard]

Originally Posted by boltoa

Really? You are legally obliged to report an accident involving an injury to the police within 24hrs. Don't think the law has anything to say about reporting to your insurers. And a quick googling would back that up, although I wait to be corrected (with links, obv ).

Edit: Some insurers will make it a T&C on their contract to report all accidents, but generally with no specific timescale, and it would certainly not be a criminal offence to break this, just a civil one (breach of contract).

I don't need to correct you since I don't dispute that you only need to report accidents involving injury to the police (Ignoring the criminal/civil argument). I never said that as a statuary requirement the law required you to report it to your insurers. As you are already aware the requirement will be in a legally binding contract with an insurance company that you are legally obligated to fulfill in part as it pertains to yourself. By all means don't report an accident to your insurance company just don't expect them to honour the contract that by your own action is now void.

I don't remember making the distinction between criminal and civil law and don't recall claiming that not reporting it would be a criminal offence.

Aside from your false assumptions and obvious misreading/misunderstanding of my post the only thing I disagree with your post is the statement that only 'some' insurance companies will include such a condition in a contract with themselves. I would strongly suspect that this underestimates the true usage of such a condition which is almost certainly in 'most', if not 'all', contracts of this nature.

Of course feel free to correct me, with links of course, proving that this clause exists in only a minority of contracts ('Some' in the context that was being used to imply minority).

Actually don't bother...... I can't be bothered to argue with someone who can't read without making false assumptions and inferences.

Happy motoring all,

Tony.

[boltoa]

Direct line:
"2 Notification of accidents and losses
You must tell us as soon as reasonably possible about any incident
which may lead to a claim under this policy. If you receive any notice
of prosecution, inquest or fatal accident inquiry or you are sent a
writ, summons, claim or letter, you must send it to us, unanswered,
as soon as possible."

Implies that if an incident won't lead to a claim, then you don't need to notify.

And please, feel free to get off your high horse. Your original post was clearly misleading. The difference between the criminal offence of not notifying the police of an injury-accident within 24hrs and the potential breach of contract of not notifying your insurance company at some unspecified time interval of any incident, is fairly large, and mixing up the two issues is clearly going to cause confusion to the OP.

In the OP's case, the lorry company is clearly highly unlikely to make a claim against his insurance, so I would suggest that notifying the insurance company of the incident immediately is unlikely to do him any good, and may not be necessary at all (depending on the particular T&Cs on his policy, obviously). And certainly isn't a legal obligation within 24hrs.

[Anthony-Howard]

So with Direct Line you have a sample size of one. Well done. With my two insurance companies I have you beat. Shame neither proves anything so don't bother wasting your time in future.

Like I already said I never stated that it was a criminal offence nor did I make any distinction between civil and criminal law. A fundamental point that you have twice failed to understand and have twice accused me of saying. I do not believe that my posts have been misleading I have just been trying to point out the ramifications of being in breach of a legal contract. It won't do the op any good if he misses a contactual agreement should this result in a claim only to find out that he may be uninsured.

Unlike you I have made no recommendations to the op I have just tried to educate. It is nice that you are familiar enough with the ops contract to know that he is not contractually bound to report the incident within 24 hours. I have no such knowledge and advise him to weigh up the facts accordingly as it pertains to his individual case. I would also be wary of placing any weight on your supposition that a claim in unlikely given that you are obviously not in full possession of the facts.

As for the high horse comment. Well, I know that you are better than that so I will let it slide.

I have made my point about legally binding contracts and it is up to the op how he is going to proceed based on the circumstances as known to him. I hope that I in some small way helped.

Cheers,

Tony.

[Anthony-Howard]

Oh and just to help the op a little more and to give him something to think about.

I was stationary at an island several years ago and was hit from behind by a company van driver. The company wanted to settle outside of insurance companies to which I initially agreed. The company then since reneged on this claiming that no accident had taken place. The police were useless as there were no witnesses and when I contacted my insurance company they refused to cover me on the grounds that since there was damage that I knew that a claim may have to be made and that I had not informed them of such a possibility within the 24 hours as stated by my policy. As such I was left out of pocket for repairs. If the vans' company had been a little more honest I guess not contacting the insurance company immediately would have been ok.

Suffice to say that four insurance companies later all have had a 24 hour requirement and I am now older and wiser.

Something to keep in mind when deciding what to do op.

Cheers,

Tony.