[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

[HoarseMann]

HeadDown wrote:

HeadDown wrote:

Thanks for the reply. If it’d been a deer then I guess they’d claim on the fully comp insurance indeed. But the insurer wouldn’t then consider pursuing a deer for the settlement!

I was musing that the driver might not need to tell the insurer they know the identity of the child cyclist. If they told the insurer that a child had cycled into their stationary vehicle and run off, then it would just then be a matter of their excess and a claim on their insurance.

To be fair, I’m not really sure the driver is in a position to offer not going via their car insurance. You are supposed to inform your insurance company if you’ve been involved in a collision, no matter what.

[HoarseMann]

bikeman01 wrote:

I would look to engage one of the cycling win no fee personal accident solicitors on the basis that the boy sustained injury. And leave them to fight it out..

Ah, the old claim, counter-claim, approach. That might well work for the young cyclists family.

As you say, drivers are duty bound to operate their vehicle safely around vulnerable road users, especially children. Even if a child ran out in front of a vehicle, it is still likely to be the driver at fault if they had not been driving to the conditions and failed to anticipate the collision; no matter who notionally had priority.

[HeadDown]

Thank you for the reply
Thank you for the reply
The child was cycling and is mid teenage years. I guess the driver would need to pursue a civil claim, if the cycling wasn’t pursued by police as dangerous (ie an offence in itself), which is more hassle than it’s worth maybe. Pointless against a minor, they’ve insufficient assets against which to enforce probably.
However, the family feel that would be doing the dishonourable thing by the driver, if indeed they were blameless and the child came out when they shouldn’t have. So, the question remains; do you let the driver do it through their car insurance and risk it getting uglier when home insurance says we won’t cover the cyclist’s personal liability claim etc, or privately settle and then home insurance refuses because they privately agreed a sum.

[HeadDown]

Thanks for replying.
Thanks for replying.
The dad says he went out after the kid arrived home in tears and that’s how they all ended up together in their kitchen. Driver was perfectly nice, partner who then turned up a bit more business like. They produced a repairer’s quote later that same day I think.
Cars dent easily, it would appear. Very easily.

[HeadDown]

Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply.
The child’s early teens so didn’t give details but ran home, I gather. The dad then went out to see what had happened apparently and the driver ended up in their kitchen for most the morning in shock from the initial incident. It wasn’t really a ‘play it hardball’ situation I think, where people withhold info. I think it was talked about in their kitchen and nothing formal received.

As an aside, it seems a bit unfair on car owners generally if a cyclist does damage the car and refuses to cooperate. I guess the driver would need to pursue a civil claim, if the cycling wasn’t pursued by police as dangerous (ie an offence in itself), which is more hassle than it’s worth maybe. Pointless against a minor, they’ve insufficient assets against which to enforce probably.

[HeadDown]

Thanks for the reply. If it’d
Thanks for the reply. If it’d been a deer then I guess they’d claim on the fully comp insurance indeed. But the insurer wouldn’t then consider pursuing a deer for the settlement!

[bikeman01]

Unless they have legal

Unless they have legal cover with the house insurance they could be looking at a big bill to defend themselves because the house insurer wont want to pay no questions asked.

I would look to engage one of the cycling win no fee personal accident solicitors on the basis that the boy sustained injury. And leave them to fight it out.

Unless it is clear cut that the boy is at fault, and its not up to laymen to decide, there is an onus on car drivers to look out for cyclists so you may be surprised that the car insurer doesnt fight it.

[Oldfatgit]

Get the drivers insurance to
Get the drivers insurance to talk to your [*] home insurance.

That’s what you have public liability cover on your insurance for.

The drivers insurance will have to prove to the over insurers that the costs are proportional to the damage.

Do not offer to pay out your own pocket.

[*] use of you etc for ease.

[Rich_cb]

Assuming the cyclist is old
Assuming the cyclist is old enough to be held legally responsible for the crash and there is no doubt over fault etc then your best option is to claim on your home insurance.

The car insurance company will almost certainly pursue the cyclist for the cost of the repair if the driver makes a claim on their car insurance.

[Left_is_for_Losers]

Slightly confused by this

Slightly confused by this story, the cylist did a runner, yet seems to be identified and speaking to the driver a bit further down the story…

Seems a strange collection of items to get damaged too – a wing, grill and fog light, all in the same sort of area, but if the bike was fine with minor repairs, then it seems like a disproportionate amount of damage on the car. 

Difficult to know what I’d do. Definitely ask for proof of the damage at the very least, and an official quotation for the repairs etc. The good soul in me would say offer to cover the repairs, these things happen and hopefully a lesson learnt for next time, the bad soul says if no insurance and so on, refuse to pay, or at least settle for a lesser amount (subject to accurate damage and costings)

[Benthic]

Ultimately, the claimant will

Ultimately, the claimant will need to demonstrate that the defendant was negligent.

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.

How formal is the motorist’s claim so far? A written demand, or more casual communication?

[HoarseMann]

Many years ago, an uninsured,

Many years ago, an uninsured, unlicenced driver in a vehicle with no MOT and registered as scrapped with the DVLA, ran into the back of my car.

They tried to do a runner, but thankfully their car was incapacitated. Weirdly, they actually then gave me their real contact details – they were an 18 year old living at home.

However, when it all became clear they were not insured, I had no option but to claim on my fully comp insurance. There was no hope of getting any money out of the teenager. They claimed poverty, the parents said they didn’t know where he lived most of the time as he ‘dosses down at other peoples houses’ (which I suspect was a lie). I had legal cover on my insurance and a few stern solicitors letters to the parents did eventually get them to cough up to cover the £250 excess.

I think I would just suck it up and be glad the kid is ok. What would this person have done if the damage had been caused by a wild animal, such as a deer, jumping out in front of the vehicle?

[Author]

Replies