any car insurance experts

[Retired_member41]

Hi

I wonder if anyone can help.

Car hit us 18 months ago. No damage to their car as it was their trailer that caused our damage.

Finally at the stage after their insurers still deny liability even though our photographic evidence proves their insured is telling lies, that its going to court.

All sounds normal up to now but my question is this.

The solicitors who my insurer have instructed and when asked anything say the insurance company is their client so cant answer. Are now telling us that the hearing will be ourselves against the other driver. For the repair bill and excess.

Surely it should be my insurance company taking him to court or his insurers?

 

[GreyWing]

The solicitors are correct, the insurance company is their client. Do you have any personal losses? Were you fully comp or third party, has your insurance company repaired your car?

 

[Reddy]

Surely it should be my insurance company taking him to court or his insurers?

No the case will be in your name v. the other driver even if the insurers may be paying the costs.

 

[The Ferryman]

Caz
Look up "subrogation", that should make it clear.
Regards
Bruce

 

[GreyWing]

I'd disagree most strongly, I used to work in third party claims in a Solicitors. If you don't have uninsured loss protection (the junk that they sell you when you take out a policy) then the insurance company won't act for your losses, only their's. Without knowing the answer to my previous question it is impossible to know what is going on at this point.

Unless things have changed in the last 10 years and I doubt they have, Caz has nothing to claim for, except the excess. The insurance company is the one that paid out and the one who has the losses, so it will be Direct Line (for example) v Third party driver or third party insurance company if insured.

If Caz has uninsured losses then she can ask Direct line to add them to the claim, they may or may not do that depending on which company.

 

[GreyWing]

If they are not prepeared to act for you Caz because you didn't buy their junk policy, then you can instruct one of these to get it back for you. Your insurance company's solicitors should liaise with them if they are respectable.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=u...38,d.bGE&fp=5691d50dedd6d3b0&biw=1920&bih=995

 

[Reddy]

It seems from the original post that Caz's insurers are going to court to recover the cost of repairs and the excess (on behalf of Caz), so from this I assume Caz's policy was Comprehensive cover (often incorrectly referred to as 'fully comp') and the car has now been repaired. The question was whether the insurers are correct bringing the case in the name of the insured, which in my experience is the norm.

 

[Retired_member41]

Hi. Great answers.

Fully comp with legal cover. Repairs of £1500 fixed and us out the £250 excess.

I lost my no claims which was only a couple of years on this car and as its still un resolved im about to renew at a much higher cost for the second time since the incident.

So this court case is for 1500 for my insurer and only 250 for me. Plus I would like to have my no claims back and a ruling of no fault. Thats why im amazed its me taking the action. And when it arrives on the other parties doorstep they will see it as us not the insurance co coming after them. With their costs being higher surely its for them to get it back and not me. Am I obliged to take action if im to prove our not at fault claim. Maybe against my own insurer?

Subrogation looking now.

Thanks all.

 

[The Ferryman]

The insurance company has no cause of action against the third party, they only have subrogation rights
Bruce

 

[Retired_member41]

Wow Bruce

Subrogation it is. Amazed that when they have paid a claim they can step into your shoes and use your name to do all they can to recover their money.

Surely it should be against the insurers though as to sue the insured would be using their insurers subrogation rights to which me/my insurers have no right to?

Thanks again acorn, brilliant advice yet again.

 

[GreyWing]

Bruce I used to take people and other insurance companies to court on behalf of UKI. I understand what you mean by subrogation rights but I don't understand the material difference that you indicate it makes.

Your insurance company won't care about you to be honest Caz, £1500 is chicken feed and your solicitor won't usually be bothered either. Your solicitor in court will probably see it 15 minutes before the case. I hate to say it but that's the reality of it. I have heard some horror stories including the solicitor suing his own client and winning. He got confused about who his client was.

Most solicitors don't get paid to go to court by the way, its all expense. Most sign agreements with insurance companies that means they get all the accident injury stuff free and make shed loads out of that, but have to do the normal claims free.

You can take your own court action, in my opinion go get one of those claims companies to do it for you. Make sure it is no win no fee. Once they sue the other party on your behalf, your insurance company can't go to court then, unless you add their fees on to your claim.

If it is still the same, only the first party to court can sue them. 99.99% of the time the individual and the companies insurance solicitors work together.

 

[The Ferryman]

Bruce I used to take people and other insurance companies to court on behalf of UKI.

... but what you were actually doing was using the insurers subrogation rights to take action, not in their own name, but in the name of their policyholder, that is, it was Caz B v The other driver, with the insurance company funding the action, not The Insurance Company v The other driver, as they cannot do that, as they have no right of action, they can only use their subrogation rights, to stand in the shoes of their policyholder, as Caz correctly says.
Regards
Bruce
former insurance company Regional Claims Inspector, Chartered Insurance Practitioner, etc......

 

[GreyWing]

... but what you were actually doing was using the insurers subrogation rights to take action, not in their own name, but in the name of their policyholder, that is, it was Caz B v The other driver, with the insurance company funding the action, not The Insurance Company v The other driver, as they cannot do that, as they have no right of action, they can only use their subrogation rights, to stand in the shoes of their policyholder, as Caz correctly says.
Regards
Bruce
former insurance company Regional Claims Inspector, Chartered Insurance Practitioner, etc......

I'm not sure about how others companies did it mate but we also took action on behalf of our client which was UKI. Every letter we sent out was on behalf of them and in their name. So we went to court it was in the name of our instructing Client, UKI. So it was always UKI v xxxxxx

If our client UKI said to stop court action we stopped it, the client would have to go and find their own. This was often down to evidence, chance of winning etc.

Like I said I don't know how other companies issued their claims as I was in recoveries not defending them. But we never had any comeback in putting UKI v whoever on a court's claim form. The drivers details were always on their somewhere. So I don't think their was a material difference, our client was always the insurance company and we took instruction from them.

 

[The Ferryman]

Here is an example, RSA wanted to get a court ruling, but the action had to be taken in the name of their client, and against the third party, not their insurers, that is how it has to be done

http://www.postonline.co.uk/post/news/2184738/rsa-wins-subrogation-costs-allianz-fears-motor-premium-hike

......as for UKI, they are the biggest shower of completely useless idiots I have ever had the misfortune to deal with, they lost the engineer's report for my car, they lost their file, they even lost my car with my personal belongings in it!
Regards
Bruce

 

[GreyWing]

......as for UKI, they are the biggest shower of completely useless idiots I have ever had the misfortune to deal with, they lost the engineer's report for my car, they lost their file, they even lost my car with my personal belongings in it!
Regards
Bruce

lol, I can't actually deny that. They are a proper shower.

I see what you are saying with regards putting their names on the court papers and yes what it looks like you are saying is correct. When I was saying material difference I meant that on our claims forms it was always UKI on there, they instructed us and we'd never take instructions from clients.

However I only recall once maybe twice those two interests ever being different. That was when the driver wanted us to pursue a claim but we had no evidence, the insurance company would say pull them plug. When I was building a case I'd need the driver, caz to co-operate or I'd get nowhere. So I don't understand why this company is refusing to deal with caz.

Back to UKI, It was their solicitor that sued his own client. He was out side the court and started talking to the wrong person, getting their side of what had happened. He hadn't got the case notes. When he got in the court he started to represent them, the wrong side and won