Accident with substandard tyres, insurance company refusing cover. Options?

Foxy007

Registered User
Messages
22
Accidents happen. I rear ended into a wall because the road I was on was slick, it was lashing rain so heavy and dark, so I couldn't see and I stupidly tried to swerve to avoid something on the road to later find out it was a traffic cone and not a person... I didn't have time to recover and hit the wall. I was to blame because I was inexperienced (less than a year) and thought somehow I could control the car. I paid out thousands but it taught me a lot about how insurance companies see things. My driving is a lot more careful these days.
 

LS400

Frequent Poster
Messages
493
Car insurance is there to cover a drivers liability when the driver is at fault.
Quote


Absolutely, but part of your contract with the insurance company is, that you maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition so as far as the risk is concerned, they are not disadvantaged.
They are obliged to pay out all costs to the third party whether you had one, or 4 bald tyres, buts thats where their liability ends. If you contributed to this incident in anyway shape or form through negligence, how in all seriousness do you expect to be rewarded for this.


The car had the Nct in August 2018, the accident was in April 2019, the Tyres had 8 months more driving on them, this has nothing to do with the nct.

Appeal it internally as best you can,
Are you saying all that tongue in cheek!! If the Nct wasn't due for 12 month, would that give you 12 more months until you need to change the tyres?
 

cremeegg

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,740
Hi, my husband was driving my car last week and rear ended anot I was told that the whole matter is in question now as they are looking at not paying out at all because of the tyres... and if there are any third party damages they will be against me.

I dont have any money ...
If you contributed to this incident in anyway shape or form through negligence, how in all seriousness do you expect to be rewarded for this.
I don't expect the OP to be rewarded, I expect the Insurance company to make her whole, because she purchased insurance, against the risk that she might through her own fault damage her car.

Again insurance is for when you are at fault, you don't need it when you are not at fault.

For the insurance companies to split up the ways in which you can be at fault, damage caused by your careless driving (which is a criminal offence) is covered: damage caused by failure to maintain the car is not covered, in my opinion is underhanded.

People buy insurance in good faith, I am not sure insurance companies sell it on that basis.
 

MangoJoe

Frequent Poster
Messages
101
How is it a good thing that this person didn't even manage to brake before the moment of impact? What if he had hit 2-3 kids on bikes?

- It seems to me that failing to hit the brakes is being suggested as some sort of a mitigating factor in driving around with 3 bald tyres?!?!?

In my opinion every user on this site is at the greatest risk of suffering life-changing, devastating and traumatic injury through their ordinary, daily road use at the hands of dangerously incompetent drivers.

OP you have my sympathies that you're tied to a speeding, tail-gating, individual who's happy to drive unmaintained cars dangerously and at great speed in close proximity to innocent people without having the wit, intelligence and good judgement to stop said car during the course of normal traffic events…...

I see people like your husband driving in this fashion every day of the week and couldn't have less regard for them.
 

SparkRite

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,071
Who provides cover for your own losses as a result of criminal activity?
Nobody AFAIK, but you have now changed the question that you answered above.
I never mentioned 'your own losses' , I was simply pointing out (re. cremeeggs question, "will your insurance cover you ...") that I disagreed with your answer to said question and that you are still covered whilst 'criminally' driving.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
9,823
Nobody AFAIK, but you have now changed the question that you answered above.
I never mentioned 'your own losses' , I was simply pointing out (re. cremeeggs question, "will your insurance cover you ...") that I disagreed with your answer to said question and that you are still covered whilst 'criminally' driving.
Yeah, fair enough. I was focusing solely on the personal loss piece as this thread is only about the OP's own losses, there doesn't seem to be any issue with the 3rd party liability cover.
 

Cervelo

Frequent Poster
Messages
446
I was told that the whole matter is in question now as they are looking at not paying out at all because of the tyres... and if there are any third party damages they will be against me.
This to me implies that the insurance company is not paying out at all, neither the policy holder nor the third party
 

Palerider

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,337
As I said this has nothing got to do with the NCT.

It was suggested that passing the NCT should ensure safety of Tyres but in this case the incident was eight months post test.
 

LS400

Frequent Poster
Messages
493
This to me implies that the insurance company is not paying out at all, neither the policy holder nor the third party
1) The insurance will pay out for third party, there is no question of them not. They have done nothing wrong here. They may though look (unlikely though) to recover their losses from the OP.

2) They (Insurance Company) would be quite within their rights to reduce comprehensive payment, if the tyres are found to be in un-roadworthy condition, and especially if they contributed to the accident resulting in an avoidable loss. They carry the risk, but in doing so, expect you to do your part in maintaining the vehicle to a roadworthy standard.
 

mathepac

Frequent Poster
Messages
6,708
If my insurance company said I wasn't insured due to tread depth I would argue my case if I did not believe that the tyres affected the outcome. For example, if I didn't brake or if the road was dry. Given that we pay 7% (was 5%) government levy I'd tell the 3rd party that my insurance company were refusing to pay and that they should claim from the MiBi.
Unless you're an automative engineer or loss adjuster you are in no way qualified to make any such a determination. What you believe is irrelevant. To pay or not to pay a claim is not your decision, that is solely the remit of the insurer(s).
 

michaelm

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,623
No claim re qualifications made, just the basis of an argument. You're insured for everything until you have a claim, then the insurers will do whatever they want, including paying out on a baseless claim before loading your premium.
 

Seagull

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,171
I don't expect the OP to be rewarded, I expect the Insurance company to make her whole, because she purchased insurance, against the risk that she might through her own fault damage her car.

Again insurance is for when you are at fault, you don't need it when you are not at fault.

For the insurance companies to split up the ways in which you can be at fault, damage caused by your careless driving (which is a criminal offence) is covered: damage caused by failure to maintain the car is not covered, in my opinion is underhanded.

People buy insurance in good faith, I am not sure insurance companies sell it on that basis.
Would you argue that the insurance company should pay out if the car had no NCT? Or if the driver was drunk? One of the requirements for your insurance to be valid is that the vehicle is maintained and roadworthy. Driving around with bald tyres is perfectly good grounds for the insurance company to reject a claim.
 

johnwilliams

Frequent Poster
Messages
164
could i jump in and ask a quick question ,does insurance companies have a tyre max age limit (how many years old)?
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
9,823
could i jump in and ask a quick question ,does insurance companies have a tyre max age limit (how many years old)?
The NCT issue an advisory to replace anything over 6 years old, but age alone is not an automatic failure.
 

DirectDevil

Frequent Poster
Messages
571
Yeah, fair enough. I was focusing solely on the personal loss piece as this thread is only about the OP's own losses, there doesn't seem to be any issue with the 3rd party liability cover.
Just a clarification if I may as this point does cause confusion.

Some acts of driving can be both simultaneously a criminal offence and a civil wrong (like the tort of negligence).
The insurers are indemnifying in respect of the tortious liability element and that is a contract which enjoys legality of purpose.

For example, D may be drunk, drive dangerously and smash in to another car.
The insurers will provide indemnity in respect of the tortious act of negligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo

DirectDevil

Frequent Poster
Messages
571
The NCT issue an advisory to replace anything over 6 years old, but age alone is not an automatic failure.
I got one of those advisories last year.
The tyre was in good and legal condition having been checked a week prior to NCT by a garage.

Why are they doing this ?
Are we heading for a situation whereby tyres over a certain age will become an automatic NCT fail ?
I think that alignment of lights could produce a so-called fail advisory but it then became an NCT fail.
 
Top