[HeadDown]

I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. Sorry for the long post.

Someone (u18) I know didn’t see a car at a crossroads where they were to give way, and cycled into it. The child was upset and left the scene as soon as possible, but luckily the car and witnesses stopped and swapped details. The child had a bruised elbow and later a stiff neck, but the bike was Ok after minor repairs and the child recovered within a few days. The car’s wing was damaged and, apparently, grill and fog light. The driver reported that they can get it repaired for £1400, and gave this family the choice of going through the driver’s car insurance or personal liability under Contents part of the cyclist’s home insurance. It is dangerous to discuss fault in such a situation, especially when live, but the child simply didn’t see the car which by all accounts was not speeding (the driver thought the car may even have been stationary upon impact, but the child doubts this), but we are all mindful aren’t we of the hierarchy of vulnerable road users and a motorist’s obligation to be able to stop.

My question to you: is there something I’ve overlooked when deciding this?

Driver’s car insurance: repair would be through one of the insurer’s repairers, probably therefore more; driver’s premium would increase (slight schadenfreude admittedly but this person presented the family with the repair quote the same day before even asking how the child was); but is there a possibility of the car insurance pursuing the cyclist, which would be unpleasant and disproportionate – they are bound to, aren’t they? Inevitably there would follow a fight about fault, where it does seem to be in the driver’s favour. Would the home insurance company resist paying to the cyclist because of perceived fault, landing the cyclist family with both a larger bill and having had to deal with a car insurance firm?

Home insurance personal liability: reduced sum on payout; no pursuit of cyclist by car insurance; but cyclist cannot accept a sum to pay and then claim that against home insurance without home insurance agreeing first, which they might resist because they’ve essentially been presented with a privately agreed bill.

Clearly the home insurance company decide which route, but the family is trying to fully assess the issues first, and the home insurance is very difficult to get through to by phone thus far (online product, constantly on hold when phoned, and starting a new claim process requires an amount to be claimed, which won’t exist until this is decided -chicken and egg).

Thank you.

Topic

[Benthic]

WiznaeMe wrote:

legally correct, morally wrong.  Are you suggesting that people should damage property and then make off?

Thank you for your opinion.

[BikeyDavey92]

As someone who works in

As someone who works in Insurance completely agree with this. This is why you have the product and even if everyone is well intentioned, you can avoid any type of misdeed by going the more structured path here 

[David9694]

It was how quickly this

It was how quickly this figure emerged that concerns me. 

[HoarseMann]

Yes, even though I had

Yes, even though I had protected no-claims and it was deemed a no-fault claim, my premium did go up. However, I shopped around and got a cheaper quote than what I was paying previously, from another insurance company (that’s with declaring the claim saga).

[Jimmy Ray Will]

This sounds to me to be one

This sounds to me to be one of those situations where everyone is trying to be nice, in a situation where niceties are not the order of the day. Doing so will only end in fall out and resentment on both sides no matter how good the intentions. 

Check that the family is covered by their home insurance. On the basis that their home insurance policy does come with third party liability cover, then they should be gravy. 

Assuming so, swap insurance details and let the relevant companies thrash it out. Tell the family not to get personally involved any further. 

I cycled into a car a few years ago. Poor road conditions left me unable to stop in time for an oncoming car, tried to go down the side, didn’t make it. Long and short of it, I was cycling too fast for the conditions… my fault. 

Anyway, we swapped details, the driver sent me a letter, I forwarded it to my insurer (through BC membership / licence) and that was the end of our communications. My insurer contacted me, asked me to complete a load of paperwork and then I got on with my life. The driver never contacted me again, so I assume they were compensated. 

No need to be nice, just take the correct actions and move on. This is why we pay premiums. 

[WiznaeMe]

HoarseMann]

HoarseMann wrote:

[quote=HeadDown]it would just then be a matter of their excess and a claim on their insurance.

And an increase in the drivers premium for the next few years.

[WiznaeMe]

Benthic wrote:

The error was the cyclist providing details in the first place. Section 170 of the Road Traffic 1988 Act only requires drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles to provide details, not cyclists. Too late now.

legally correct, morally wrong.  Are you suggesting that people should damage property and then make off?

[stonojnr]

Just remember next time your
Just remember next time your car insurance quote goes up, this will be one of the reasons why.

Read the ops version of how the cyclist crashed into the car.

[stonojnr]

If its a car made in the last
If its a car made in the last 10-15 years, very easy to rack up 1400 quid in repairs, even if the damage appears minor to the eye, because everything is built in modules and front valance, wings, grills, you can’t just buy the bit you need it comes in one chunk and so you have to cost replacing the whole thing.

I was quoted over 1k to fix some front low speed crash damage, airbags didnt even go off,on a car that visibly looked to have just a bent number plate, because the crash repair place wanted to replace a whole chunk of bumper that was barely scratched and respray it too.

Suspect there’s a bit of a game going on in the crash repair business thesedays to inflate their costs, which the insurer pays, via increased premiums to their customers.

[David9694]

The old “one-two” seems

The old “one-two” seems familiar, but even if the collision happened at breakfast time, the bit about the £1400 quote appearing same day doesn’t sit at all well with me. 

you must get an insurance company involved on the rider’s side – don’t attempt any more direct dealings.

has anyone made a report to the police? 
 

 

[Rich_cb]

The driver is contractually
The driver is contractually obliged to inform their insurance company. If they do so then you must get your insurance involved.

If the minor is covered by your home insurance then a civil claim will be worth pursuing as most home insurance policies have liability cover extending to seven figures.

Either insurance company will get very legal very quickly so it might be easiest just to let the two companies thrash out the details rather than act as a go between.

I’d check if the cyclist is actually covered by your home insurance and if they are just relax and let the insurance companies fight it out.

[Oldfatgit]

“So, the question remains; do
“So, the question remains; do you let the driver do it through their car insurance ”

If you are asking on behalf of the cyclist who caused the collision … this is not their call to make.
This is the call of the driver to make.

As a driver, I would *have* no choice to report the collision or risk voiding the insurance .. so if I’ve got to report it, might as well let the insurance company pursue the claim and take away the stress.

[Oldfatgit]

I am totally confused.
I am totally confused.

Are you asking on behalf of the car driver or the cyclist?

If obo the car driver … then go through the car insurance as it *has* to be reported to them anyway.

How they pursue the cyclist is not the drivers (or your) concern.

If a sum of money has been agreed between the driver and the cyclist to make good, then insurance is a null point … but the driver still *has* to notify their insurance and advise no claim.

No insurers will honour an agreement that has been made outside of their claim system between two individuals.

[HeadDown]

Good point
Good point

[HeadDown]

Thanks for the time taken to
Thanks for the time taken to reply
Think they (yes they, not us!) are considering doing the right thing and putting the driver back in the position they were in previously, feeling it wasn’t their fault. It’s simply whether to use car insurance but risk that insurer being more aggressive pursuing the cyclist family (or the sum ending up more and then home insurance claims it back off the cyclist for at-fault (would they, could they?)) or settling between them and home insurance saying they won’t pay as privately agreed.

[Author]

Replies