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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DirectDevil said:
The moral is that people must read and understand that colloquially termed "small print" and become aware of their contractual obligations.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider that to be small print.

But I do agree that people should be aware of their contractual obligations.

Brendan
 
DirectDevil said:
Thanks for the update.

There is confusion about a refusal of indemnity whilst simultaneously dealing with the third party claim.
The insurers are not indemnifying the OP in respect of the third party claim.
The insurers are dealing with the third party claim because they have to under statute.
This is a scenario where refusal of indemnity cannot deny a third party their entitlement to claim.
Technically, the insurers could actually approach OP after settlement seeking recovery of their outlay on the third party claim.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this further DirectDevil please? Should I contact the insurance to get an update on the 3rd party claim? At the time of accident, husband did not have own Ins on his car, he was named driver on mine, hence why the 3rd party claim is coming off my insurance etc
 
Cervelo said:
I thought the same but then the OP quoted the reply from the insurance company which says



So are they covered in respect to the third party claim??
Click to expand...
I presume 'this claim' to mean my claim for car replacement - the 3rd party damages are a separate claim ???
 
unstacked said:
Can you explain this further DirectDevil please? Should I contact the insurance to get an update on the 3rd party claim? At the time of accident, husband did not have own Ins on his car, he was named driver on mine, hence why the 3rd party claim is coming off my insurance etc
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the policy wording there is probably a condition that says that the insurer reserves the right to seek recovery from you of any outlays that they had to pay by virtue of law where they would otherwise not have had to pay.

This is on the basis that in certain circumstances if a motor insurance policy is inoperative the injured party will not be denied compensation.
The insurance company that had "cover" on the vehicle will be obliged to pay the third party claim.
As I recall it the technicality is that if there was a current certificate of insurance on the vehicle at the time of the accident that insurance company must deal with any third party claim as what is known as the "insurer concerned".
The policy condition then gives them the right to seek to recover that outlay from you on the basis that they had to pay solely because of law.
Whether they would actually seek recovery from you is a different matter.

To answer your other point the third party is not actually claiming from your insurance because your insurance is actually inoperative for this accident. The third party is actually claiming from your insurance company as if the insurance company was acting for the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
 
mathepac, the core point I make is that the obligations imposed by the Aviva wording seem to be very onerous for the average reasonable person.
Not everyone actually has the facility of punctilious precision even though they may be reasonable and diligent about care of their vehicles.
However, on a "strict constructionalist" approach to contractual interpretation your are entirely correct in your endorsement of Aviva's position.
Having read a number of motor insurance contracts over the years it does seem to me that Aviva's terms are very tightly drawn comparatively but we will just disagree on that.

BTW, on another point, are you a fan of Richard Shakespeare's Henry VI ? i.e. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". :)
 
DirectDevil said:
Somewhere in the policy wording there is probably a condition that says that the insurer reserves the right to seek recovery from you of any outlays that they had to pay by virtue of law where they would otherwise not have had to pay.

This is on the basis that in certain circumstances if a motor insurance policy is inoperative the injured party will not be denied compensation.
The insurance company that had "cover" on the vehicle will be obliged to pay the third party claim.
As I recall it the technicality is that if there was a current certificate of insurance on the vehicle at the time of the accident that insurance company must deal with any third party claim as what is known as the "insurer concerned".
The policy condition then gives them the right to seek to recover that outlay from you on the basis that they had to pay solely because of law.
Whether they would actually seek recovery from you is a different matter.

To answer your other point the third party is not actually claiming from your insurance because your insurance is actually inoperative for this accident. The third party is actually claiming from your insurance company as if the insurance company was acting for the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
Click to expand...
April letter 1 states...in the event of third party claims ...Aviva reserve the right to pursue me or my husband for full recovery of all outlay incurred in respect of my liability for such third party claims on foot of that obligation.
Letter 2 a claim for vehicle damage and injury has been made against you (me) by the claimant arising out of the incident. We are attempting to resolve the claim..we shall let you know the final outcome....

Both letters in April...haven't heard from Aviva since.

Will Aviva pay out and my Bonus Protection kick in?....
 
unstacked said:
April letter 1 states...in the event of third party claims ...Aviva reserve the right to pursue me or my husband for full recovery of all outlay incurred in respect of my liability for such third party claims on foot of that obligation.
Letter 2 a claim for vehicle damage and injury has been made against you (me) by the claimant arising out of the incident. We are attempting to resolve the claim..we shall let you know the final outcome....

Both letters in April...haven't heard from Aviva since.

Will Aviva pay out and my Bonus Protection kick in?....
Click to expand...

Straight answer - I don't know.

There is a possible argument that Bonus Protection will operate on the basis that you have not received an indemnity under the policy in the normal sense. This could be argued as not being a claim under the policy. However, it remains to see what Aviva actually do with your renewal.
 
DirectDevil said:
Straight answer - I don't know.

There is a possible argument that Bonus Protection will operate on the basis that you have not received an indemnity under the policy in the normal sense. This could be argued as not being a claim under the policy. However, it remains to see what Aviva actually do with your renewal.
Click to expand...
Renewal date 31st Oct, should hear from them soon. Worried now I'm going to get a huge bill for damages because insurance wouldn't cover costs
 
Renewal is €1295. No discounts allowed by Aviva. Because the claim is open. Bonus Protection & Step Back have no affect on Aviva hiking my insurance up because claim is open. No one else will insure me either for same reason. If claim closes mid year- won't get any rebate.
 
unstacked said:
Renewal is €1295. No discounts allowed by Aviva. Because the claim is open. Bonus Protection & Step Back have no affect on Aviva hiking my insurance up because claim is open. No one else will insure me either for same reason. If claim closes mid year- won't get any rebate.
Click to expand...

Slightly puzzling if indemnity was declined under your policy and they have also stepped back or removed your NCD.
If indemnity was refused it occurs to me that there was actually no claim under the policy as distinct from Aviva's statutory or other legal obligations to pay third party claims.

On the issue of renewal it occurs to me that you were probably fortunate to obtain a quote.
As far as I know there is no obligation on insurers to offer renewal of annual contracts like motor insurance policies.
 
Agree with DD that you are lucky to get a quote at all.

unstacked said:
Bonus Protection & Step Back have no affect on Aviva hiking my insurance up because claim is open.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this bit. Are they saying that if the claim had been closed that you would benefit from Bonus Protection and Step Back?

This is what the Aviva website says:

  1. Step back No Claims Discount
    If you make a single claim or one arises against you during any period of insurance, we will reduce your No Claims Discount in the following intervals:
    - A 50% discount is reduced to 20%,
    - A 40% discount is reduced to 10%,
    - A 30% or less discount is reduced to 0%.
So if your original discount was 30% or less, then they would be right to reduce it to 0%.

Brendan
 
And there is the issue.

Indemnity was refused under the contract.
How can Aviva simultaneously say that NCD is reduced in consequence of a claim under the policy ?

The third party claims will not be dealt with as a claim under the policy.
The third party claims will be dealt with in consequence of legal obligations outside of the policy (as "insurer concerned" I think.)
By definition, the refusal of indemnity affirms that there can be no claim under the policy.
Ergo, how can Aviva deal with OP as if this was a valid claim under the policy ?

As mentioned previously, Aviva may have rights to attempt to obtain reimbursement from OP for the paid claims but that is a distinct issue.
 
Does this not fall under the "have you had any accidents, claims or convictions" line of questioning?
Even an incident that no indemnity was provided will change the assessment of the risk going forward.
 
My premium is increased from 555 last year (bonus protected and step back ) to 1295 this year (BP and SB).
My NCB was not reduced this year
Still at 5yrs.
I have no discretionary discounts available to me to reduce the premium.
Because claim is 'open.
Aviva say average claims stay open for is 1.5yrs.
No one else will insure me because claim is open.
With all the protection, your NCB stays but they still hike premium up
DirectDevil said:
And there is the issue.

Indemnity was refused under the contract.
How can Aviva simultaneously say that NCD is reduced in consequence of a claim under the policy ?

The third party claims will not be dealt with as a claim under the policy.
The third party claims will be dealt with in consequence of legal obligations outside of the policy (as "insurer concerned" I think.)
By definition, the refusal of indemnity affirms that there can be no claim under the policy.
Ergo, how can Aviva deal with OP as if this was a valid claim under the policy ?

As mentioned previously, Aviva may have rights to attempt to obtain reimbursement from OP for the paid claims but that is a distinct issue.
Click to expand...

"By definition, the refusal of indemnity affirms that there can be no claim under the policy."
Should I attempt to fight this dirtdevil?
 
unstacked said:
My premium is increased from 555 last year (bonus protected and step back ) to 1295 this year (BP and SB).
My NCB was not reduced this year
Still at 5yrs.
Click to expand...

Can you show the actual figures e.g.

Last year
Premium: €1,000
NCB: 50%
Net premium €500

This year
Premium: €2,590
NCB: 50%
Net premium €1,295

Brendan
 
unstacked said:
"By definition, the refusal of indemnity affirms that there can be no claim under the policy."
Should I attempt to fight this dirtdevil?
Click to expand...

No. Luternau explained it.

The term "no claims bonus" is a misnomer. It should be a "no accident bonus".

An accident where you were not covered is still an accident.

Brendan
 
Luternau said:
Does this not fall under the "have you had any accidents, claims or convictions" line of questioning?
Even an incident that no indemnity was provided will change the assessment of the risk going forward.
Click to expand...

Those considerations would indeed apply to the renewal of a policy or the seeking of cover elsewhere as they are material facts.
Aviva have notice of the material facts here so that is not an actual issue.

The sub-issue arising is that of Aviva's increase in premium.
unstacked has now clarified that the NCD was not reduced. Therefore, Aviva seem to be in order on that specific point.

What now remains is for Aviva to explain to OP why the premium has been increased.
 
Last edited:
Update since last time:
Have paid 3rd party costs.( vehicle, tow etc )
Claim will be closed
My insurance record will be clear. 3rd party not taking injury claim thankfully..(.I would have that to pay too and simply don't have that kind of money.).
 
Well done, I'd say that has lifted a lot of stress that you've been carrying around for the last few months
Now going forward, don't let your husband near your car:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top