Claiming injury while not insured...

T

traceyc

Guest
I will try and make this brief as it can get very long winded but my friend was in an accident 2 years ago, she and her boyfriend and friend were picked up by her father late at night in a two seater jeep. Her friend sat in the front and she and her boyfriend sat in the back (no seats), it was a windey road and they met a large lorry coming in the opposite direction, he was driving too fast for the road and was also over the white line and so the father tried to pull in but the two vehicles collided. Father had a small injury, passenger thankfully ok but the two in the back were thrown out of the jeep and had pretty serious injuries (both thankfully ok now). Both drivers are saying they are not at fault, police came out and their report states that the lorry was about a foot over the white line.

We found out that both drivers are insured with the same insurance company!! The jeep got replaced as did the lorry but now its down to the injury claim. The jeeps insurance specifically excludes anyone who is not sitted in a seat so no claim is to be made from them but solicitors have been involved and compensation is trying to be claimed off the lorry drivers insurance (same company) The lorry driver isnt injured.

My friends solicitor is telling them not to go to court as they could lose and end up paying lots of money and/or they could be looking to her father for compensation of the money already paid out. This is what i dont understand.

The police are more or less stating that the other driver is at fault but firstly why would the same insurance company want to take each other to court? and if it was settled on a 50/50 basis (which is what I feel would be the worst outcome for them) then why would either the courts/other insurance company/MIBI seek compensation from her father???

I understand that maybe the solicitor is trying to say that as her father was 50% responsible (should it be 50/50) then she could take her father to court for more compensation? But why would she want to do that? Surely the courts cannot force her to take such action.

The reason I am asking for some advice is that she and her boyfriend are now thinking of just leaving it be. Its not like they are trying to get loads of cash, all they want is for their hospital bills and lost wages to be covered, thats all.

I hope someone can give me some advice to pass on and i hope that this hasnt been too long for you.
 
They shouldn't have been sitting in the back of the jeep given that it has no seats!

Why on earth should they get anything from the insurance company?! If an award was made the chances are that it would be reduced significantly due to the contributory negligence of the injured passengers - no seats, let alone seatbelts - they should be blaming themselves rather than anyone else.
 
Dont worry they certainly do blame themselves, but they had been out celebrating and thought it would be safe to phone home to let someone collect them. That aside, it certainly does not give someone the right to cause this type of accident and get away with it!

My profession is a claims adjuster but I dont deal with injury, I once had a claim where a guy hit another car when that car was parked on double yellow lines, he tried to get out if it by saying that he shouldnt have been there in the first place - I told him that that didnt give him the right to hit him - similar principles?
 
Both insurance policies paid for themselves, they were both fully comp. Its only the injury that is in question as both parties are blaming each other.
 


Equally though insurance won't cover you if you leave your car running with the keys in the ignition. There is some onus on the policy holder to take due care. In this case he driver of the jeep did not. The fact that he had to claim for his jeep from his own policy would indicate that he was partially at fault. The fact that the father was uninjured and the friend in the front seat had a minor injury would also indicate that the injuries suffered by the pair in the back were caused by them not being in seats. Therefore, as stated above any monetary compesation they would recieve would be seriously reduced due to that fact.
The lorry driver may have been at fault for the accident but not for their injuries. Their injuries were caused by the father allowing them in the back and their own decision to sit in the back.
If any payout was made to them the insurance co could take the father to court as it is a stipulation in the contract of insurance that the company have the right to recover any claim paid if the person has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the policy. As the father in this case carried passengers in the back he did not adhere to the terms and conditions.
 
Liability in an accident and whether or not an insurance company should pay out on the liability are not always the same thing. There is also a general rule that you cannot insure for breaking the law.

I would imagine that in this case, the father would have some sort of liability for illegally carrying passengers who subsequently got injured. However, the insurance company would have no liability to pay out on the claim, so the damages may have to come out of the fathers pocket.
 
I have carried passengers in the back of a two seater jeep and got stopped by the Garda.
I got a right Bollo**ing and rightly so.
He said that I would be liable as I knowingly carried uninsured passengers in the vehicle.

He still let me drive on though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register