Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,759
I wouldn't consider that to be small print.
But I do agree that people should be aware of their contractual obligations.
Brendan
The moral is that people must read and understand that colloquially termed "small print" and become aware of their contractual obligations.
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 etcThanks 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.
I presume 'this claim' to mean my claim for car replacement - the 3rd party damages are a separate claim ???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??
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
I presume 'this claim' to mean my claim for car replacement - the 3rd party damages are a separate claim ???
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.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.
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?....
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 costsStraight 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.
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.
Bonus Protection & Step Back have no affect on Aviva hiking my insurance up because claim is open.
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.
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.
"By definition, the refusal of indemnity affirms that there can be no claim under the policy."
Should I attempt to fight this dirtdevil?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?