More insurance nonsense - they just take the Mickey!

[Rick-sta]

So towards the end of last year my fiance's car was shunted from behind by a young girl who failed to stop at a roundabout and went straight into the back of Deanna's car. Luckily Deanna was in her Fiesta Mk7, and I was in front of her in her TF so I stopped as well after this happened. Damage caused was a split in the rear bumper, broken fog light mount as that is now loose and a large scratch across the back of the bumper. The bumper has now also gone all flimsy in the across the middle after the impact (you can push the bumper in really easily in the middle section and it just bows in easily), whereas it used to be pretty rigid prior to this. The insurance was made aware of all this damage.

The girl although was being a pain in the back side about it has since admitted liability to the insurance. Just had the insurance assessor come out today to take a look at it at Deanna's place of work, guy was pretty genuine and noted down the damage but said that the claim has been noted down as a low impact collision on the claim file back at the office which Direct Line (the insurance company) don't pay out on. WHAT KIND OF GARBAGE IS THAT?!

I've never heard such nonsense from an insurance company, so what they're saying is she didn't get hit hard enough and didn't cause enough damage to get her car repaired??? So if that's the case, if someone scrapes my car in a carpark at 2mph and admits liability they won't pay out for that either?

It wasn't even low speed impact, the girl must have been doing at least 20mph still at point of impact as she hit Deanna's Fiesta so hard it pushed her car forwards into the roundabout. I was amazed that there wasn't more damage. Deanna was also in pain in her back for a few days after this due to whip lash and went to minors later that afternoon just to get checked. Deanna knew it was whip lash straight away as she's been through it all before, albeit 10x worse last time, but just to be on the safe side we took her to be checked anyway. So I hardly class that as low impact!

The guy said he'll speak to the claims team to get the repair approved.. damn right you will. What's the point of having the insurance policy and paying out all that premium then?

All sounds dodgy to me, as Deanna is insured by Direct Line and so is the girl who hit her, so sounds like another case of the Insurance company not wanting to pay out as they insure both cars.

Has anyone ever heard of such "no.2" from an insurance company?

Another dodgy thing Direct Line said when we first called them to inform them of the incident, what I done when my ZT was hit this time last year was phone my insurance and inform them of the incident but state that I do not want to claim off my own policy and want the insurance details of the guy who drove into me, as I want to claim directly off their policy. Which was all fine. Direct Line however turned around and said to us that we are not allowed to do this and must claim through Deanna's own policy and the costs will then be recovered off the other party's policy, and refused to give the other party's insurance details. I mean unless something's changed since when I claimed last year, that is absolute garbage as well. Again probably because Direct Line insure both cars so being funny about it.

Just waiting to hear back from them now, I will be going mental at them if they turn around and say they're not paying out for the repair, leaving Deanna with a split bumper, loose fog light and a nice scratch across the back of the bumper. + I doubt the bumper would hold out so well again if the same were to happen another time. All we're claiming for is for the rear bumper to be replaced, not even making a whiplash claim or any nonsense like that or a courtesy car.

Could have been worse though, luckily I had just pulled away at the roundabout when Deanna was hit, otherwise if I was still in the queue of traffic potentially the shunt would have pushed the Fiesta straight into the back of the TF. That would have been both of Deanna's cars damaged due to one girl's stupidity!

Yet again it seems like another case of where the driver who rear ended Deanna's car was texting on the phone, we don't know for sure, but Deanna has a feeling she was on her phone, as when she looked up in her rear view mirror after the impact, the girl driving the car behind looks like she was frantically looking for something on the floor of the car, most likely her phone which she probably dropped after the impact. I mean there's no way you can't see us stopped at the end of a long straight section of a 50mph dual carriage way at a roundabout when we'd been in the queue for the roundabout for around 10 seconds before she came along.

[zedhed]

Insurance companies are one big joke.if damage has been done in the slightest,surely they are abliged to pay out😠


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vacuman]

Would you not still be liable for the excess on a successful claim (can't recall if that can be recovered from the 3rd party or not)? If so maybe not worth the claim considering possible impact upon future premiums (even though it was no fault on Deanna's part.

How bad was the damage to the front of the other car?

Taking an open mind here, 20mph at collision speed with a stationary car would, I would have thought, done more than simply split the bumper a bit. Not that it makes any difference of course and, isn't it the rule, a rear-end shunt is always the other driver's fault with potential for claims of driving without due care and attention?

Should have called the police and have them check her phone for activity at the time of accident. And maybe this is another reason to have rear-facing 'dash' cams.....

[MSS]

I for one am confused by the opening post. Are you claiming off your own insurance or the other party (ignoring the fact that the same insurer has insurance contracts with both prties).

If it is the other party, it is not really for you to have a view on what the other party's insurer covers the other party for. Your claim is against the other party and they may or may not engage their insurer to pay for the damage caused by them.

If, on the other hand, your claim is with your own insurer, then you simply go by your insurance contract's terms and conditions. If the T&C's state that the insurer will not cover low impact damage, then you are not covered for low impact damage. Alternatively, if they do not specifically exclude exclude such damage cause then you should be covered by the general conditions of the insurance contract.

With reference to your other incident, you cannot claim against another party's policy - only the other party can. So Directline were correct about that.

This may sound a little harsh, but you need to go with the facts rather than emotion and ranting.

[Rick-sta]

Originally Posted by vacuman

Would you not still be liable for the excess on a successful claim (can't recall if that can be recovered from the 3rd party or not)? If so maybe not worth the claim considering possible impact upon future premiums (even though it was no fault on Deanna's part.

How bad was the damage to the front of the other car?

Taking an open mind here, 20mph at collision speed with a stationary car would, I would have thought, done more than simply split the bumper a bit. Not that it makes any difference of course and, isn't it the rule, a rear-end shunt is always the other driver's fault with potential for claims of driving without due care and attention?

Should have called the police and have them check her phone for activity at the time of accident. And maybe this is another reason to have rear-facing 'dash' cams.....

Not liable to pay excess in this case, have never had to pay an excess on a claim when the other party has been at fault. May be different for some insurers but no excess to pay in this case.

Didn't really look at the other car, no splits or breaks in her bumper but didn't look any closer than that, was an old KA. The bumper took the impact as it is designed to do, there's quite a gap between the bumper and slam panel on the Fiesta so luckily the damage didnt go further. I've had a look at the bootfloor etc and so has the assessor and can't see any damage. I think the damage was a bit less as Deanna had taken her foot off the brake just before the impact.

Yes rear end shunt is pretty much always the other driver's fault in these sort of situations, I can imagine the only time it wouldn't be is if it could be proven the driver of the front car caused the accident, i.e. with a dash cam.

I for one am confused by the opening post. Are you claiming off your own insurance or the other party (ignoring the fact that the same insurer has insurance contracts with both prties).

It's pretty clear in my OP, claim has to go through Deanna's policy and then insurer recovers cost from other party, which in this case is themselves.

If it is the other party, it is not really for you to have a view on what the other party's insurer covers the other party for. Your claim is against the other party and they may or may not engage their insurer to pay for the damage caused by them.

Nope not correct, I can claim directly off the other party's insurance if i want to if they are at fault and can demand then to repair the car. Have done so with my ZT when it was rear ended last year, in which case I demanded a payment in lieu of repairs as I wanted to use my own garage to repair the car, which they paid out on and couldn't argue.

I don't have to go through my own insurance if I don't want to, I am just required to inform my insurance of the incident.

If, on the other hand, your claim is with your own insurer, then you simply go by your insurance contract's terms and conditions. If the T&C's state that the insurer will not cover low impact damage, then you are not covered for low impact damage. Alternatively, if they do not specifically exclude exclude such damage cause then you should be covered by the general conditions of the insurance contract.

The insurance company can't turn around and say they won't pay out on a repair because they apparently don't pay out on low impact collisions, when the other party is at fault. If I hit something and claim off my own insurance to repair it then fair enough, not when someone else hits your car and they admit liability.

With reference to your other incident, you cannot claim against another party's policy - only the other party can. So Directline were correct about that.

Again see above, that's not correct.

This may sound a little harsh, but you need to go with the facts rather than emotion and ranting.
21st January 2019 13:58

I think you're the one that needs to get the facts right...

[MSS]

If it keeps you happy.

But, I will say that you seem to have a misunderstanding of the basics of liability following third party damage. I suspect this is at the root of your frustrations.

But, as I say, whatever keeps you happy!

[stevestrat]

Originally Posted by vacuman

Should have called the police and have them check her phone for activity at the time of accident.

I'd be surprised if the Police would expend the little resources they have in a damage only bump. Breathalyser maybe but couldn't see them doing anything else.

[Rick-sta]

Originally Posted by mss

If it keeps you happy.

But, I will say that you seem to have a misunderstanding of the basics of liability following third party damage. I suspect this is at the root of your frustrations.

But, as I say, whatever keeps you happy!

if you say so

[Rick-sta]

Originally Posted by stevestrat

I'd be surprised if the Police would expend the little resources they have in a damage only bump. Breathalyser maybe but couldn't see them doing anything else.

Would be a waste of time really, no way near major enough of an incident to call police. Would only bother if it was serious or if there was suspicion the driver was intoxicated or if it seemed like the driver may not have insurance. Would just be a waste of police time to be honest.

We checked if the car was insured there and then. Also the last time Deanna was rear ended badly (some of you may remember when she came to meets on crutches), the girl who hit her (which police suspected was at around 50mph whilst Deanna was stationary in traffic) was on the phone texting which was checked and proven by the police. The police report was that from the evidence at the scene, the girl was speeding in a 30 zone whilst on the phone, braked extremely late which could be seen from the skid marks on the road. She even lied to the police claiming her brakes failed, which didn't go to well when the police questioned why there are skid marks from the tyres on her car then.

Even with all these points considers (speeding, on the phone, lying to police) all she got was she was required to attend some driver's awareness course, no points or fine! Waste of time.

[stevestrat]

That's the trouble Rick, you could be the best driver in the world but you don't know about those around you. Few years ago late afternoon/early evening I was following a Golf in the outskirts of town, it was wandering around the road a bit so I dropped right back. It then drifted right into the gutter, caught a metal fence and flipped onto its side! Some pedestrians went to check the driver, I phoned Police and Ambulance. Gave the traffic officer a statement and he immediately said sounds like drink or drugs, found out a while after the female driver was indeed prosecuted for drink driving.