Goon Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Many years ago I ran into a drunken pedestrian who staggered into the road. The impact caused him to smash into my windscreen and shatter it. The police absolved me of any blame but I still had to fork out for the damage to my car. I was insured third party fire and theft and could have gone down the route of suing the man involved but this would have been a long and drawn out process. It's very frustrating; especially if, like I was, you are not in a very strong financial position. In my case I put it down to experience and spent some time off the road until I could repair the damage myself. I feel really bad for your sister-in-law but she may have to take this one on the chin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 My sister in law was in a car crash yesterday - a drunk fell into the road in front of her and she swerved into an other car to avoiding killing the bloke her insurance are saying it was her fault (and therefore refused to give her the courtesy car on her policy) but thay are also saying she will have to pay her excess and loose her no claims as there is no other party for them to claim off seems a bit unfair to me - any one got any suggestions? Or can they really do this? Yep I agree, it would be classed as her fault because she was the one that drove into the other car and caused the damage. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 19:13 ---------- Technically it is her 'at fault' as she drove into the other person. However it's a very Macabre situation as it implies for her to not be 'at fault' she should have hit the man. No win situation I'm afraid. And then she could have sued him for the damage to her car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skink Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 thanks folks - it sounds like it is unfair but true, Opened my eyes a little to this topic, I always assumed if you had got insurance that included words like "you are covered for uninsured drivers" etc kind of stretched to idiots like this drunk - but it doesn't. And it looks like most car insurance is like this it also sounds like if she had hit him she would still be out of pocket so that little "dilemma" isn't real anyhow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autumn Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Years ago my son got the wheel of his bike stuck in the Tram tracks a car hit him and he landed on the bonnet .The driver of the car claimed from our house insurance .Our Insurance company paid out without us knowing .We were shocked as the police said the driver had been driving too close to my son.We tried to contest it but no joy .We even tried to claim off the tram company but didn't get anywhere with that either . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 She would have been better off killing the drunkard. She would have been exonerated had it gone to court, which it probably wouldn't have, and the insurance would have had to pay. She could have claimed her excess, and even compensation for the distress of it all, from the drunkard's estate. This means that her insurance company is not playing fair and should be boycotted. Which one was it? It's worth noting that the Police don't get into trouble when they kill drunkards, even when they're speeding to a non-urgent routine call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's annoying but it'll go down as her fault. Not sure how the excess works but I went spinning on some black ice. Went down as my fault but didn't pay any excess or lose my no claims with my insurer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 She would have been better off killing the drunkard. She would have been exonerated had it gone to court, which it probably wouldn't have, and the insurance would have had to pay. She could have claimed her excess, and even compensation for the distress of it all, from the drunkard's estate. This means that her insurance company is not playing fair and should be boycotted. Which one was it? It's worth noting that the Police don't get into trouble when they kill drunkards, even when they're speeding to a non-urgent routine call! Whether she had been exonerated by the court makes no difference, the persons family have got a right to claim off her insurance for up to 6 years, her insurers would leave the claim open for a period of time and also put a reserve on the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Whether she had been exonerated by the court makes no difference, the persons family have got a right to claim off her insurance for up to 6 years, her insurers would leave the claim open for a period of time and also put a reserve on the claim. Three years. It'd be a personal injury claim, so it's three years (Limitation Act 1980). Six years is non-PI claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 She would have been better off killing the drunkard. She would have been exonerated had it gone to court, which it probably wouldn't have, and the insurance would have had to pay. She could have claimed her excess, and even compensation for the distress of it all, from the drunkard's estate. This means that her insurance company is not playing fair and should be boycotted. Which one was it? It's worth noting that the Police don't get into trouble when they kill drunkards, even when they're speeding to a non-urgent routine call! I think your attitude is foolhardy.Had the drunkard died,there would have been a forensic examination of the vehicle,faults being highlighted and a manslaughter case would follow.Without witnesses there would some scope for the CPS to prosecute,and given the recklessness of drivers,a case would be likely. ---------- Post added 01-12-2012 at 20:17 ---------- My sister in law was in a car crash yesterday - a drunk fell into the road in front of her and she swerved into an other car to avoiding killing the bloke her insurance are saying it was her fault (and therefore refused to give her the courtesy car on her policy) but thay are also saying she will have to pay her excess and loose her no claims as there is no other party for them to claim off seems a bit unfair to me - any one got any suggestions? Or can they really do this? This sounds lie a story concocted to win sympathy and evade responsibillity.Did she use the brakes,a key factor in stopping a vehicle?Has the drunkard been checked for alcohol consumption or are we taking the drivers word.She is a remarkable observer if she can identify inebriation when driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Three years. It'd be a personal injury claim, so it's three years (Limitation Act 1980). Six years is non-PI claims. Whilst it is 3 years to file a claim the insurers can keep a claim open for longer and if it is a child they have up to at least their 18th birthday to file a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.