Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

To refuse to pay

135 replies

MamanOfThree · 07/06/2015 17:39

Went out with three colleagues of mine on Friday for an office do. I was driving.
As we were getting in the car colleague B managed to shut the door onto the hand of colleague A.
I sent a text to colleague A this am to check that her fingers were OK (she said it was fine on friday evening). Her answer was that yes her fingers are OK, no problem at all. However, two of her rings got badly damaged as well as the strap of her watch. She is asking ME to pay for the repair and to claim via the insurance of the car.

Now my issue is that
1- it's not me who closed the door on her and but colleague B. I was nowhere near them at the time (ie on the other side of the car) so really they should sort it between them.
2- This is not an issue with the car being dangerous etc... It was an accident due to bad timing/not being careful (s drunk?)
3- but if I do put a claim, then I am the one who will see the insurrance premium going up.

So AIBU to say that no I'm not going to pay/claim through my insurance?

OP posts:

SuckMySquallop · 07/06/2015 21:07

MamanOfThree - see my earlier post on Page 3.

RoastitBubblyJocks · 07/06/2015 21:17

Or is it just because it's about a car?

It is a bit, yes.

I agree she should initially (morally) either claim off her own personal possessions policy, or ask Colleague B for the money. (Actually I just think she's a chancer...)

But legally, if she puts in a claim against YOU, your insurer will pay for it.

Fascicle I really don't want to get into arguments with half of MN, too much like work but here is a link.

www.thompsons.law.co.uk/road-traffic-accidents/road-accidents-uninsured-stolen-vehicles.htm

SuckMySquallop · 07/06/2015 21:22

"But legally, if she puts in a claim against YOU, your insurer will pay for it. "

Complete bollocks.

Depends on the policy specifics.

Debinaround · 07/06/2015 21:30

Does she drive op?

Just wondering if she knows that if you make a claim on your insurance you have to pay excess and your premiums will shoot right up? Or does she think that insurance company's just give money out and you won't have to pay a penny?

RoastitBubblyJocks · 07/06/2015 21:37

SuckMySquallop Well is it "complete bollocks" or is it "policy specific"? It can't be both, and I have already posted confirmation from one of the biggest car insurers that it's not bollocks.

You don't pay an excess if it is only a third party claim. Only if you claim for damage to your own car.

Thisismyfirsttime · 07/06/2015 21:53

Thank you for that Roastit, very informative! In the instance of stolen cars though does your insurance go up if they pay out a claim for your stolen car (and would they ever pay out?!)?

RoastitBubblyJocks · 07/06/2015 22:13

Thisismyfirsttime it would go up, yes Shitty and unfair though it is, it would be a claim on your policy so you'd lose any No Claim Bonus and your premiums would go up.

They probably would pay, as it wouldn't be looked on too favourably by the courts if they tried to dodge it (unless they can find another insurer they can pass it to who they can show is more liable, eg if the theif had their own policy or something!).

TheNumberfaker · 07/06/2015 22:13

I agree with Iwaly . Don't call your insurance because it will count as an incident even if you don't claim.
Tell her to ask the other passenger who actually harmed her to pay. Not that she should, does no one suck these things up anymore?

TTWK · 07/06/2015 22:16

Suckmysquallop-"But legally, if she puts in a claim against YOU, your insurer will pay for it. "Complete bollocks.Depends on the policy specifics.

All passengers are covered are covered by motor insurance, by law, it's not something given on some policies and not on others. All drivers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their passengers. That's the law.

Check you facts before insulting people, especially when you really don't know what you are on about.

TTWK · 07/06/2015 22:19

I seriously doubt you would be liable! It's like someone coming to you and saying 'You know that hammer you lent me? Well a friend of mine dropped it on my hand, so now you owe me money.

You are not vicariously liable in law for tools when you lend them out. You are vicariously liable in law for passengers in your vehicle. That's the difference.

TTWK · 07/06/2015 22:22

Fascicle-I'm interested to know the part of the law that makes drivers responsible for the actions of adult passengers.

That'll be the law that makes drivers vicariously liable for the action of their passengers. HTH.

IamTheWhoreofBabylon · 07/06/2015 22:27

How can you be liable for damage done by a thief driving your car when they are not named on the policy

ColdCottage · 07/06/2015 22:27

What is she thinking.
Speak to the other colleague or suck it up (the latter would be the normal response).

TTWK · 07/06/2015 22:31

Bifswif-You can't insure something you don't own - ie her rings. You would not be covered under any policy in the world.

But you can insure for damage you do to other people's stuff. It's called third party liability cover. When you buy car insurance, you are covered for damage or injury caused by you or your passenger's negligence.

So when you say you would not be covered under any policy in the world, you're almost right, apart from the fact that every single motor insurance policy in the world would cover it!

Close though!

PurpleCrazyHorse · 07/06/2015 22:33

I don't know about legally, but when I (accidentally) shut my own head in my own car door (busy road, mistimed pulling the door shut), I claimed on our house insurance for my broken glasses.

I never would have thought it would be covered by (my own) car insurance.

I think she's a chancer and I'd refuse to give insurance details. If she wants to pursue it, let her do that, I certainly wouldn't be handing her the info on a plate. If I got a letter from a solicitor, then so be it, if I have to claim then fair enough, but I'd probably seek my own legal advice then too. I'd also refuse to give lifts to the lot of them in the future.

TTWK · 07/06/2015 22:39

Purplecrazyhorse-I don't know about legally, but when I (accidentally) shut my own head in my own car door (busy road, mistimed pulling the door shut), I claimed on our house insurance for my broken glasses.I never would have thought it would be covered by (my own) car insurance.

With respect, what happened to you was nothing to do with your liability to others, so really not relevant to this case!

pluCaChange · 07/06/2015 23:04

This is madness, though. Has she even tried to take it up with Colleague B, or are you just the soft touch, or the most junior...or some other reason why you might be most susceptible to unreasonable pressure?

Collaborate · 07/06/2015 23:33

I've read some utter bollocks on this site, but this thread takes the absolute biscuit.

If a policy covers passengers, that usually means that it insures the passengers in the event that they are injured in a road traffic accident.

An insurance policy insures the policy holder by paying any sum a court orders them to pay as a result of their negligence. OP: you will not be liable.

In the highly unlikely event that your policy would actually cover your situation (and the Thompsons website link posted by BubblyJocks doesn't actually say what is suggested - it only confirms the insurance company can pay if it wants to, but that it may decline to pay, in the event that a thief of your car is involved in an accident), don't make a claim. You were not negligent, so colleague A could not sue you. She'll have to sue colleague B. Why would you want your NCD to be lost, and your premiums go up? You'd have to be barking mad.

TTWK - In commenting on purplecrazyhorse's post you fail to notice that what happened to OP also had nothing to do with her liability to others.

fascicle · 07/06/2015 23:39

I'm interested to know the part of the law that makes drivers responsible for the actions of adult passengers.

TTWK
That'll be the law that makes drivers vicariously liable for the action of their passengers. HTH.

No, that doesn't help. Why don't you link to a case (that doesn't involve an employer being responsible for an employee)?

Roastit
Re: liability of owner for personal injury whilst car is stolen - your link said:

This decision will be down to the discretion of the insurance company involved.

Still not sounding like a legal obligation.

TTWK · 08/06/2015 08:48

Collaborate-If a policy covers passengers, that usually means that it insures the passengers in the event that they are injured in a road traffic accident.

Usually yes, but not exclusively. A passenger would also be covered for property damage in the event of an accident. Say their clothes were damaged in an accident for example. Passenger liability under motor insurance is not restricted to injury. Also, an accident doesn't have to be a collision with another vehicle or object. It could be the car catching fire, or the door being slammed on someone hand.

There is an established principle of drivers being vicariously liable for their passengers. In cities across the UK today, cyclist will be knocked off their bikes by passengers opening their door without looking. And in those cases, if the cyclist is injured or their bike/clothing is damaged, they will claim against the driver and their motor insurance.

In the strictest sense, it could be argued that the driver is negligent. They are the road user and they know the dangers. The passenger may not even be someone who drives or is aware of the dangers. The driver is obligated to ensure that the passenger only opens their door when safe to do so.

Another backup example of vicarious liability of the driver would be a child travelling in a car without a seatbelt. Even if the mother or father of the child is also a passenger in the car, it would be the driver of the car who would be prosecuted is they were stopped. The driver has vicarious liability to ensure the child is wearing a seatbelt, not the parent!

fascicle · 08/06/2015 09:08

The driver has vicarious liability to ensure the child is wearing a seatbelt, not the parent!

But the driver is not responsible for adult passengers wearing seatbelts, which might suggest that a driver is not vicariously resonsible for the legal consequences of all adult passenger actions.

TTWK · 08/06/2015 09:27

But the driver is not responsible for adult passengers wearing seatbelts, which might suggest that a driver is not vicariously resonsible for the legal consequences of all adult passenger actions.

That's quite true. Has the woman shut her own hand in the door, then I think she'd have no case against the OP. Adults are liable for things they bring on themselves, like not wearing a seatbelt.

But she didn't slam her own hand in the door, another passenger slammed her hand in the door. In legal terms I can't see the difference between that and the passenger opening the car door and knocking the cyclist off their bike. Ultimately, in simple terms, this woman had her property damaged after being hit by the car door, thru no fault of her own.

It's an interesting case, that's for sure.

Collaborate · 08/06/2015 10:01

There is an established principle of drivers being vicariously liable for their passengers. There isn't. That you have been asked to substantiate your view but have yet to do so is quite telling. A driver will only be liable for a passenger opening a door and causing an accident if:

The driver had parked in a dangerous place; or
The driver had told the passenger it was safe to open the door; or
The driver was not properly supervising the passenger when they should have been (e.g. passenger is a child).

The common thread through these situations is that the driver had done wrong.

Vicarious responsibility is a doctrine that will usually be applied to employers being responsible for the torts of their employees while going about the ordinary course of their business. It is wrongly being applied by you to this situation.

I'm a lawyer.

ImSoCoolNow · 08/06/2015 10:07

Whether your insurance would pay out is debatable (as you can see). So, if it were me, I'd politely tell her to fuck off. If she decides to pursue it, that's another story. THEN you can start speaking to your insurance company. There's no way I'd be bowing down to her entirely ridiculous demands so readily. Unfortunately we now live in a 'where there's blame, there's a claim' era and so many people are jumping on the band wagon and forgetting their morals.

RoastitBubblyJocks · 08/06/2015 10:34

It's because it counts as "use of the vehicle" under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

I have posted the wording from an Insurance policy that states that it would be covered. I really don't know how much more clear it can be.

So if a passenger flings a door open into the car beside or into the path of a cyclist and injures them... Tough? Hard luck cyclist, you've got a brain injury but no compensation for you? Luckily the law doesn't agree with you.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6