# Help! Car insurance pursuing me for 100k!



## suemoo (14 Aug 2018)

Hi all,

Here is the situation of a friend

- Daughter was 3rd party learner driver on her car
- she was insured by her mother  so she could help her to learn to drive 
- one evening last year my friend was in bed and she took the car without permission. She was not allowed drive the car unless her mum was was there with her. So technically she stole it I guess?
- that evening she had a crash
- a year later I get a letter today from the car insurance company and they said they are refusing to provide indemnity and they are seeking to recover a major sum of money?

Question I have here is can the insurance company seek to recover this cash in this circumstance?  I don't think that's possible

appricate any advice I can pass to my frined as she is really in a bad way emotionally right now about this

thanks


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Aug 2018)

Clearly someone must pay for the injuries caused by an uninsured driver. 

I would think that the the daughter is liable for any damages as she is the person who drove a cal while not insured.

Not sure about the mother.

If it's a straight theft of a car where someone breaks into a car, hot wires it, and causes injury, I doubt if the owner is liable.

However, if the owner leaves the keys in the ignition and someone robs it, then I would think that the owner is negligent and, therefore, liable.

In this case, it would be closer to the second case than the first.

Who do you think should pay for the injuries?

Brendan


----------



## Palerider (14 Aug 2018)

If the daughter is under 18 then your friend is indeed in trouble, speak to a Solicitor as soon as practical. 

If she took the car without permission with the keys then she stole it and your friend should have reported this to the Garda and may yet have to do so.

Speaking as a parent it was drilled into them never to take the car without one of the parents being with them, it is all about maturity and responsibility and in this case this is a tough lesson but the daughter has it seems caused a lot of damage and perhaps personal injury to another innocent, that needs to be compensated and one cannot expect any insurance company to cover that when the rules of engagement were broken.

A salutory lesson for all parents.


----------



## Joe_90 (14 Aug 2018)

You learn something new every day.

I would have assumed that despite not being allowed by their license from driving alone that the insurance would still apply.  Like it applies when traveling in excess of the posted speed limit.

BUT it seems that insurers have been changing the terms for provisional drivers to specifically NOT cover unaccompanied drivers.

So the terms and conditions of the policy are the place to start.  Assuming the insurance company in question has the not cover clause then the owner of the car has a problem.


----------



## LS400 (14 Aug 2018)

I have come across this exact situation many times.

The only way to avoid being pursued for recovery is to treat the incident at theft.
Unfortunately of course, this means the person is prosecuted for taking the car without permission and the consequences that follow.


----------



## Palerider (14 Aug 2018)

Provisional licence holders or permit holders as they are now referred are only insured to drive their car when they are accompanied by a competent licence holder who has held a full licence for at least two years.

The car insurance policies for my children stipulated that very clearly, they did not drive unaccompanied, I would have lost the plot if that happened ....even once.

It is also the law of the land so why would an insurance company take on the risk of insuring an unaccompanied driver when the law says that driver must be accompanied. 

The Clancy amendment as it was referred to is now law and anybody that facilitates a learner driver driving a car without being accompanied is committing an offence, In this case the owner of the car should immediately have reported the vehicle stolen in order to somewhat mitigate the dangers that have come to pass in this case unfortunately.


----------



## Ravima (14 Aug 2018)

Insurer MUST deal with the Third Party claim, but under your Policy Conditions they CAN seek recovery of the outlay from driver and Policyholder.


----------



## Palerider (14 Aug 2018)

The OP stated the insurance company were seeking to recover a major sum of money which seems from information provided to be following some sort of resolution of the claim but more information would help.


----------



## DirectDevil (15 Aug 2018)

My 10 cents.

The owner of a car is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver only if the car was being driven with *consent* of the owner.
In this case there should be no vicarious liability as there was no authority given expressly.
The owner also needs to exclude the possibility of *implied consent* to drive.

Implied consent could arise where, on the facts, there is evidence of previous instances of unaccompanied driving being permitted by the owner.

In Ireland taking a vehicle without consent is known as taking a vehicle with authority. See RTA 1961 S.112.
LINK http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/112/enacted/en/html#sec112.

Insurers would probably have refused indemnity anyhow if the driver had consent but was driving unaccompanied. Many insurers seem to exclude policy liability for this event. However, any third parties injured by the negligence of the driver - in a public place - will have to be paid by the insurance company that had a certificate of insurance issued on the car at the relevant time. This then leads to the issue of recovery.

The owner will be open to action for recovery of the insurer's outlay only if the owner gave consent.
The driver is certainly open to action for recovery but that will probably be of no practical value if she has no assets.

Hopefully, the owner did not sign any form of indemnity for the insurer authorising them to settle on her behalf. If she did that she has a problem.
The normal drill would be for such an indemnity to be obtained first but it is not necessarily fatal to the insurers efforts to recover outlay.

My overall suspicion is that the insurers may be misreading or misconstruing their contractual rights to seek recovery. I think that the fatal flaw for the insurer is the consent issue. If there had been consent I would take a different view.


----------



## Steven Barrett (15 Aug 2018)

What did she do to do €100k worth of damage?!!! Did she crash into a number of cars? Partially knock down a building?


----------



## Seagull (15 Aug 2018)

With the change in the law, the owner is essentially deemed to be liable unless the car has been taken unlawfully.

The parent has two options
- report the child for stealing the car
- Cover the damages

Either way, they need to be in contact with a solicitor fast.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2018)

SBarrett said:


> What did she do to do €100k worth of damage?



Probably a dented bumper  and whiplash!

Brendan


----------



## Cervelo (15 Aug 2018)

suemoo said:


> - one evening last year my friend was in bed and she took the car without permission.



Is it not to late now given that this happened "last year" to be thinking that the child should be charged with stealing the car ??


----------



## Seagull (15 Aug 2018)

I think you're right. The option of reporting the car stolen is past. I'm presuming that this went through the mother's insurance, and the insurance company have recorded correspondence with her, so she can't deny knowledge of the accident. The question then becomes whether the insurance company should be pursuing the daughter or the mother for the claim amount.

I should have made my post more general in that those are the options in the immediate aftermath of a learner driver crashing your car unaccompanied. Unless the damage was trivial and you could realistically claim ignorance until the insurance claim arrives.


----------



## Palerider (15 Aug 2018)

Not to be pedantic but a crime can be reported at any time, I am not implying this will protect the mammy, she needs legal advice.


----------



## mathepac (15 Aug 2018)

If the car is  classified as "stolen", meaning Mammy took all the steps necessary to secure it, then surely the theft clauses of the policy kick  in?


----------



## Palerider (15 Aug 2018)

It was not reported as stolen at the time so I would not think that would fly, perhaps the OP would like to comment on our comments at this point.


----------



## DeeKie (16 Aug 2018)

Surely if the insurance doesn’t cover the loss the insurer should not have dealt with the loss at all?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2018)

DeeKie said:


> Surely if the insurance doesn’t cover the loss the insurer should not have dealt with the loss at all?



It's not that simple.

If I understand it correctly, if a validly  insured car is involved in an accident although the driver is not insured , the insurance company settles the claim and pursues the owner.

If an uninsured or unidentified  car is involved, then the Motor Insurers' Bureau settles the claim. And all insured drivers pay for it through a levy on the insurance companies.

Anyone who suffers injury in a car accident will be able to claim against some insurance company. 

Brendan


----------



## DirectDevil (16 Aug 2018)

Palerider said:


> Not to be pedantic but a crime can be reported at any time, I am not implying this will protect the mammy, she needs legal advice.



You are correct.

Most car thefts would be dealt with on a summary jurisdiction basis in the District Court. In that case the relevant summons would have to have been sought from the summons office within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence. There is time thereafter to serve the summons. For that reason it would seem that a prosecution is unlikely at this stage.

+1 about Mammy seeking legal advice !


----------



## DirectDevil (16 Aug 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's not that simple.
> 
> If I understand it correctly, if a validly  insured car is involved in an accident although the driver is not insured , the insurance company settles the claim and pursues the owner.
> 
> ...



Basically, that is it.

The case where the insurance is in place but it is invalid catches the insurance company that had a certificate of insurance in place on the vehicle at the relevant time. Last time I dealt with one of those the insurance company would be deemed the "insurer concerned". That means that the insurance company has to deal with the third party claims. However, this is *not* the provision of indemnity under the policy and is dealt with in effect as an MIBI claim.

The price of uninsured motoring impinges on properly insured people two ways ;

1. A person who is uninsured and who incurs a financial liability for the MIBI is costing the insured motorist because the MIBI is funded by all insurance companies who underwrite motor insurance in the country. The companies fund this liability from their policyholders.

2. A person who drives uninsured but without having an accident is also a sponger. Specifically, when they drive they represent a risk just like every other motorist but they are not sharing or covering the risk in a pool like properly insured people. Put another way, I pay a premium every year and the uninsured motorist does not. If I have an accident my insurers deal with it. If the uninsured motorist has an accident they will likely receive the same indemnity from the MIBI whilst having paid no premium.


----------



## Vanessa (18 Aug 2018)

Technically the car was not stolen as the daughter intended to return the car. The legal term " taking without the owners consent" and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act rather than the Theft Act


----------



## Seagull (21 Aug 2018)

I know that is the charge in the UK. Does TWOC exist in Irish law a well?


----------



## Leo (21 Aug 2018)

Seagull said:


> Does TWOC exist in Irish law a well?



Taking a vehicle without authority here. Fines updated in the 2006 act:
Section 112(2)(_a_) - A fine not exceeding €5,000
Section 112(2)(_b_) - A fine not exceeding €20,000


----------

