Motor Car accident with stolen car how to pursue it.

If the other person is at fault, you are obliged to claim on their insurance, not your own.
Where did you get this from? I don't recall any such obligations in my own policy. What happens in cases of shared fault - 70% their fault and 30% my fault?

Dealing with the MIBI is the same as dealing with a third-party’s insurance company. In fact, the MIBI appoint an insurance company to handle the claim on their behalf. They will still investigate the accent, require statements, sent assessors, argue liability etc. Also, when dealing with the MIBI, they will not directly pay for replacement car hire and you will have to pay up to your own insurance company’s excess (these can be claimed at a later date, but with more paperwork).
But the key difference is that you don't lose your NCB if you claim of MIBI - right?
 
You're not comparing like with like, folks. Yes, when an insured driver hits you, you have the option of claiming off his insurance. However, if you do that, you take on a load of work on yourself. You might have to argue about liability, in a disputed claim. You need to deal with the expert claim assessors at his insurance company. You are probably not an expert in assessing damage. You don't know the industry standards for allowing rental for a replacement car. You mightn't be sure of your rights if you choose not to actually carry out the repair. It's not impossible, but it's hard work.

Part of the reason of paying for comprehensive insurance is that you get paid for damage to your car, regardless of who is at fault. And you don't need to be a hardass negotiator. You pay a price, in terms of losing your no claims bonus.

But apparently, if you get hit by an uninsured driver, you have the luxury of getting it sorted by your own insurance company, without worrying about your NCB.

So youre just flat out ignoring option 2 for the purpose of your argument? Only one not comparing like for like is you.
 
So youre just flat out ignoring option 2 for the purpose of your argument? Only one not comparing like for like is you.

I'm not ignoring anything. Have a look at 123.ie policy document; http://www.123.ie/downloads/RSAMotorPolicy0714.pdf

Section 3
Accidental Damage to the Insured Vehicle
We will pay for accidental damage to Your Car and Accessories and spare parts while they are in or on Your Car or in Your private domestic garage

There is no question about fault, or who is to blame. If you have comp cover, you can claim of your insurance. Now, look at what they say about the No Claims Bonus;
Section 13
No Claim Discount – Step-Back
If a claim is made under this Policy, any no claim discount previously earned will be reduced at the next renewal as shown below:[/QUOTE

So there is nothing about recovering the costs from the other party. If you make a claim, you lose your discount - regardless of blame. It's a no-claim discount not a no-blame discount.

So, the clear comparison is;
1) Got hit by an insured driver, claim of your own comp insurance => lose your no claim bonus
2) Got hit by an uninsured driver, claim of your own comp insurance => keep your no claim bonus

If I've got something wrong, by all means correct me. If not, it is clear that you are better off being hit an uninsured driver, than an insured driver.
 
I have tried to correct you already. Skip to the section of the wording that discusses subrogation.
 
Subrogation is the act of one party claiming the legal rights of another that it has reimbursed for losses. Subrogation occurs in property/casualty insurance when a company pays one of its insured’s for damages, then makes its own claim against others who may have caused the loss, insured the loss, or contributed to it.

For Example: Suppose another driver runs a red light and your car is totaled. You have insurance on your car, so you call your insurance carrier and they pay you for all of your expenses related to the accident. Your insurance company, realizing that the other driver had an insurance policy, then seeks reimbursement from the at-fault party’s insurance carrier. Your insurer is “subrogated” to the rights of your policy and can “step in your shoes” to recover any amount paid out on your behalf. This is the definition of subrogation.
 
Thanks for the clarification.l I don't see any particular mention of subrogation in the 123 policy doc. Did you see something there that I missed?

But regardless, I don't see that it particularly changes my point above, unless there is a clear commitment to restore the no-claims bonus in such cases.
 
Ok im tired of talking. I work in a brokers -happens all the time!

It's great to get your professional experience on this. From a punters point of view, the question is 'does it really happen ALL the time'? Does every punter who has a claim made on their comp policy reimbursed by another insurer get back their no claims bonus? And if they do, where is this written down as a policy or commitment to customers.
 
We work for "punters" so yes it happens all the time. Subrogation is written into every policy. So yes if the other party is clearly at fault then the bonus gets re-instated. It doesnt always happen within a few days. Sometimes it can take months.

And as I said nearly every policy had a legal expenses add-on to use a law firm to pursue the claim directly if they do not want to use their own cover. These are professional firms who specialise in this.
 
We work for "punters" so yes it happens all the time. Subrogation is written into every policy. So yes if the other party is clearly at fault then the bonus gets re-instated. It doesnt always happen within a few days. Sometimes it can take months.
Yeah, the timescale doesn't surprise me. I know that anything legalistic can move slowly. But am I missing something about the policy? I didn't see any reference to subrogation in that 123.ie policy doc. Is that unusual?
We work for "punters" so yes it happens all the time. Subrogation is written into every policy. So yes if the other party is clearly at fault then the bonus gets re-instated. It doesnt always happen within a few days. Sometimes it can take months.

And as I said nearly every policy had a legal expenses add-on to use a law firm to pursue the claim directly if they do not want to use their own cover. These are professional firms who specialise in this.

Good point, I had forgotton about that. What's the impact of this in reality? Does this mean that the no-claim bonus is actually a no-blame bonus in reality?
 
Back
Top