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:

Collaborate · 08/06/2015 10:53

No tough, they can sue whoever opened the door. Or the driver if the driver was in any way negligent. There is no strict liability for the driver.

You haven't been clear at all in providing evidence to back you up. the wording of a policy document does not state the law.

RoastitBubblyJocks · 08/06/2015 11:22

For a million pounds?

The wording in a policy document states what the insurer agrees to pay for. What else do you think it means (and this is Direct Line's policy) when it says:

What is covered 1a.
Cover for you
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising from an accident which involves your car and:
• you kill or injure someone;
• you damage someone else’s property.
This cover also applies to an accident involving a trailer or vehicle you are towing.

Cover for other people

We will also provide the cover under section 1a for: • anyone insured by this policy to drive your car, as long as they have your permission; • anyone you allow to use but not drive your car; • anyone who is in or getting into or out of your car ;

TedAndLola · 08/06/2015 11:26

Roastit, that says when you damage someone else's property. It doesn't say anything about your passengers.

ChunkyPickle · 08/06/2015 11:27

Err - it does.. in section 2 'Cover for other people' - about 4 lines above yours..

Collaborate · 08/06/2015 11:31

Whilst that policy may cover the passenger's negligence, it doesn't mean to say that all policies must do so, or that anyone injured by a passenger's negligence can sue the driver of the car. Demonstrate that, and you've won me over. But I don't think you can.

ChunkyPickle · 08/06/2015 11:36

No, I'm sure not all policies have that clause. But that one above clearly says that they extend the coverage in 1a - ie injury or damage to other people's property to anyone who is getting in or out of the car. So under that policy, it's covered - I'd say that was crystal clear.

I don't know how it starts interacting with home insurance though, which often also covers valuables when out and about. I have no idea who should be claimed against first.

TedAndLola · 08/06/2015 11:37

Err - it does.. in section 2 'Cover for other people' - about 4 lines above yours..

No, it says the policy covers when you damage someone else's property when they are getting into and out of your car.

RoastitBubblyJocks · 08/06/2015 11:44

Oh for Christ's sake...

Ted it says that the cover provided to YOU (in section 1a) is also provided to ANYONE GETTING INTO OR OUT OF YOUR CAR.

I picked two random insurers, AXA and Direct Line, both cover it. I can keep looking to check more, but it'll need to wait until later. I'm pretending to work here!

Original poster

MamanOfThree · 08/06/2015 11:57

Ok so I think that the conclusion is that there is nothing clear at all. I would need to go and speak to my insurrance and check but, as that can be held against me, I can't atm I love how insurance can manage to turn everything to their advantage even when they are only giving you basic information such as 'Is xxx covered?'.....

On paper, she might have a point and might be sucessful if it was going through tribunal/insurance claims etc...

Still doesn't stop me from thinking that it's morally wrong though and that, at the very least, she should have contacted colleague B first! It's like, because I've asked how she was, she jumped on the opportunity!

Haven't seen her (yet) so not sure how she is going to react to my NO.

OP posts:

fascicle · 08/06/2015 12:11

Roastit
I don't think you've provided any conclusive evidence at all. Firstly, there's a distinction between legal obligations and what insurance policies are prepared to cover. Secondly, the example you give from Direct Line may well assume a situation where the driver's actions have impacted on the passenger. There is nothing to suggest that the driver is responsible for the consequences of one adult passenger's actions on another passenger.

Come on, give us some names of actual cases where a driver has been held responsible for a passenger to passenger incident, preferable one involving property rather than personal injury.

ImSoCoolNow · 08/06/2015 12:32

All you need to say is: no I don't want to lose my no claims bonus go speak to B. If she decides to take it further then let her. By the time she pays for legal representation she would probably be cheaper paying for the repairs herself

TedAndLola · 08/06/2015 12:44

Oh for Christ's sake...

Ted it says that the cover provided to YOU (in section 1a) is also provided to ANYONE GETTING INTO OR OUT OF YOUR CAR.

There's no need to get arsey. To me it reads that the cover extends to you causing damage to someone else's property when they are getting in and out of your car. This thread is evidence enough that it's not "crystal clear" so no need to get all frustrated that I'm interpreting it differently.

maninawomansworld · 08/06/2015 16:18

Absolutely nothing to do with you whatsoever. The fact it was your car door is neither here nor there.
Tell colleagues A and B to sort it out amongst themselves.

ttc2015 · 08/06/2015 18:19

OP Did you see colleagues A and B?

woodhill · 08/06/2015 20:07

she may have needed to have ring cut off as her hand swelled up but even so it is nothing to with you. what if her hand had got shut in the door at someones house etc?

Laladeepsouth · 09/06/2015 06:35

Homeowners policies, just like automobile insurance policies, cover accidental injuries which occur on/relating to the owner's property -- the same type of liability coverage that automobile insurance policies have. The situation would be very much the same!

Roastit and BubblyJocks are absolutely right above. And only the insurance companies and their adjusters and legal team have the expertise to decide how this will play out. And the passenger who shut the door may very well have no legal liability at all! In the US, an owner cannot refuse to give out insurance information when an accident, injury, or damage arises regardless of the particulars. Let the insurance company do its job that's why you have insurance. And this type of claim is normally rated very differently from that of an "at fault" accident.

Laladeepsouth · 09/06/2015 06:38

I meant Roastit and Chunky Pickle are absolutely right above.

Collaborate · 09/06/2015 09:04

There's only on way to resolve this (very circular) argument. OP - would you please ask your insurance company where they stand on this????

fascicle · 09/06/2015 09:37

Collaborate, just because an insurance company might cover it (and I still don't think we've had specific evidence that they might in this particular scenario involving two passengers), doesn't mean it's a legal obligation or that the OP has to pursue an insurance claim. Secondly, if the OP consults her insurance company, is there not a chance that the incident will be documented and possibly considered for future premiums, even if a claim is not pursued?

Talking to someone else about this case, they thought it very odd that the impact of shutting the car door was sufficient to damage the woman's jewellery but not her hand (which OP said was fine on Friday evening).

Oldraver · 09/06/2015 09:46

I would just tell her you are not covered for Acts Of Twattiness. She would have to be very forceful to persue a claim against you

Collaborate · 09/06/2015 10:02

fascile I agree with you that the law does not make OP liable. Nothing in this thread has shaken my belief. I'd like to think that, as a lawyer, I'd have an inkling. From what I've read, a driver can only be liable in law for the actions of passengers if they've contributed by, e.g., parking dangerously or not supervising properly. If I park up to let you out of the passenger side I would think I have a duty to check in the wing mirror that there's nothing coming. I would have no control over when or how you'd close the car door, or whether there'd be a numpty behind you with their hand in the door jam.

I'm trying to imagine how the broken ring woman had her hand placed so as to cause the damage, and I'm struggling.

fascicle · 09/06/2015 14:27

Sorry, Collaborate, for some reason I didn't associate your recent post with your previous posts (which I agreed with).

RoastitBubblyJocks · 09/06/2015 18:22

The OP/driver hasn't been negligent, but a passenger who was "using" the vehicle has been. And the policy wording I posted up earlier shows that the policy covers acts of negligence by passengers getting into and out of the vehicle. It also says it covers the legal liabilities arising out of a person you "allow to use but not drive" (can't remember exact words, I'm on my phone) the car - which I'd imagine might be loading the boot and closing the boot on someone's property or hand? I don't know, I'm struggling to think of other ways you "use but not drive"; maybe a friend jump starts it for you and it rolls down a hill empty as a result?! Anyway, that is the intention of that part 2 that extends the cover Section 1a gives.

It's not that the driver has been negligent, it's that her vehicle has injured someone as a result of another person's use of her car.

RoastitBubblyJocks · 09/06/2015 18:25

If you want to pm me your insurer I'll check the policy wording to see if it provides similar cover. Might be better than calling them in case they do keep a record.

I still think the friend should be told to bugger off though!

fascicle · 09/06/2015 21:18

Roastit
Why should the OP consider using her car insurance when it's unlikely to be a legal obligation? And as has previously been suggested, the person whose jewellery (but not hand) has been injured (colleague A), may well be covered by her own household insurance if she has chosen the appropriate cover for property away from home.

What are your thoughts on the Road User's Duty of Care and Contributory Negligence passages in the link below, Roastit? Although the circumstances are different to those of the OP, the principles are relevant to negligence and will still apply - the passengers have a duty of care too.

www.findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/car_and_vehicle_accidents/500049.html

Collaborate
I'm trying to imagine how the broken ring woman had her hand placed so as to cause the damage, and I'm struggling.

Me too. OP, did colleague B close the door from the inside or the outside of the car, and how/why was colleague A's hand in the way? (Was colleague A taking sufficient care?)

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6