Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

My fault but should I pay for the damage?

365 replies

CountryGirl17 · 28/03/2023 12:57

I can admit that it was totally my fault that I drove accidentally into my employee’s VW Transporter in the car park at work. When I told him, I was devastated and he was obviously annoyed.

As I am insured with a social, domestic and commuter policy, I thought the process would be very straightforward, but it’s not. When my employee looked into his policy, he only had social and domestic insurance and then immediately changed his policy to include commuting after the incident. When he told me, my heart sunk as I had technically hit an uninsured driver as he was using his car to travel to work. Though, as it wasn’t his fault, my insurance would cover it. I told him that it wouldn’t be an issue, but he wasn’t confident or comfortable about that.

But, that wasn’t the only issue, as he advised me that he made some modifications to his vehicle, increasing its value and I am not 100% sure that he notified his insurer (that’s my suspicion). He did say to me that he was concerned that any repairs may not factor in the cost of the modifications or could effectively right off the vehicle. Another reason to not go through insurance. Again, my insurance should cover the cost of the damage.

The damage to my car is over £1,500, so I have to make a claim and I am okay pay the £250 excess. Though, my colleague has been really paranoid and doesn’t want to go through his insurance for the reasons that he wasn’t insured at the time and his car was modified. He doesn’t want to take any risks. As he doesn’t want to go through insurance, he has decided to get his car fixed by recommended bodyshop repairer. This repairer offered to do my car too, but they are not recommended by my insurer. This is his choice.

To protect him, I’ve submitted my claim but not involved my colleague. They haven’t questioned it and the claim is going through just fine, which is good. My colleague isn’t bothered that I not telling the complete truth to my insurance company. Now, our HR department has gotten involved because my employee is upset about paying for the damage that my insurance would have covered. I can understand his annoyance, but the complications are not my fault and it was his choice to not go via insurance. If we went through insurance then he wouldn’t need to pay anything! The company has offered to loan me the money to pay for his damage, but I would have to pay it back, which basically means they are encouraging me to pay for his damage. It’s a lot of money and this is a nightmare!!!

AIBU to not pay out as I am insured or should I pay out as he works for me and it’s not his fault? I don’t know what the right thing is? Thanks.

OP posts:
SparklyShoesandTutus · 30/03/2023 10:24

**over complicated

Twofortheteam · 30/03/2023 11:23

Many people here are making this waaaay too difficult.

  1. the op was negligent and caused damage. That’s a tort and is actionable in court.
  2. the owner of the other car sues the op for negligence, and wins damages in court
  3. the op pays up.

It makes no difference if she damaged his car, his bicycle, or his wall, or whether or not he has or had insurance of his own.

She has 3rd party liability insurance, so she can (not must) allow her insurance company to take over her defence and they will pay the damages for her.

Done.

Funkyslippers · 30/03/2023 12:05

pussycatinfluffyslippers OP does not need to tell her insurers that he doesn't have the correct cover or has modified his vehicle. They will make their own investigations and it might not even be relevant to his claim

Beautiful3 · 30/03/2023 12:19

I personally would have ignored him and gone through my insurance, and told them about hitting his vehicle. However you've now filed the claim, its too late to change it. I'd tell hr, you offered to use your insurance but he refused, because he wasn't supposed to be using his vehicle for work. You cannot afford to do it any other way. Make hr aware.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 30/03/2023 13:42

More incorrect assertions and assumptions about what camper van may or may not have done with his insurance, and what he may or may not get paid out.

It's categorically incorrect to say OP's insurance would only pay for a standard vehicle if the camper was written off. If he claims against OP he is entitled to have his property returned to its pre-accident state or he compensated for its pre-accident value.

I hope the first paragraph wasn't aimed at me saying clearly what some people do and thus what this person might have done.

You must be lucky enough never to have had to make a significant claim on insurance. Companies will do anything they possibly can to pay as little as they can - what do you think loss adjusters are there for? If you lose something out of the ordinary, they will expect you to accept vouchers for a generic store that sells 'that kind of thing' (which they of course get at a discount) or otherwise take a lower payout if you 'choose not to accept' their wholly unacceptable solution. They go on market values - as assessed by them - which frequently do not leave you in the same position as you were before the loss.

For example, suppose you have an immaculate well-kept 25yo car that you have owned since it was new, so that you know all of its foibles and history, their only solution will be to give you the same value as you would pay for a similar money-pit 25yo car bought from a complete stranger, which is absolutely not a like-for-like replacement at all.

T1Dmama · 30/03/2023 14:10

It’s simple really, you go through your insurance and let them deal with it! Whether he had taken out the appropriate insurance or not is his issue and not yours.
you tell your company that you offered to claim through your insurance and if he doesn’t want to go down that route then you won’t be paying as can’t afford to pay and don’t want a loan… so it’s insurance or not at all.

SofiaSoFar · 30/03/2023 14:20

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 30/03/2023 13:42

More incorrect assertions and assumptions about what camper van may or may not have done with his insurance, and what he may or may not get paid out.

It's categorically incorrect to say OP's insurance would only pay for a standard vehicle if the camper was written off. If he claims against OP he is entitled to have his property returned to its pre-accident state or he compensated for its pre-accident value.

I hope the first paragraph wasn't aimed at me saying clearly what some people do and thus what this person might have done.

You must be lucky enough never to have had to make a significant claim on insurance. Companies will do anything they possibly can to pay as little as they can - what do you think loss adjusters are there for? If you lose something out of the ordinary, they will expect you to accept vouchers for a generic store that sells 'that kind of thing' (which they of course get at a discount) or otherwise take a lower payout if you 'choose not to accept' their wholly unacceptable solution. They go on market values - as assessed by them - which frequently do not leave you in the same position as you were before the loss.

For example, suppose you have an immaculate well-kept 25yo car that you have owned since it was new, so that you know all of its foibles and history, their only solution will be to give you the same value as you would pay for a similar money-pit 25yo car bought from a complete stranger, which is absolutely not a like-for-like replacement at all.

You are conflating issues with payouts from your own insurance policy and the 3rd party cover which covers damage you do yourself to someone else's property.

Camper Van Man doesn't need to have any insurance whatsoever on his vehicle for OP's insurance to need to payout to repair it. And it's the same story whether it's a £30k camper or a £1m Bugatti. Her insurance would still have to pay for the damage.

It's no different to OP having crashed into the office reception doors and smashed them. Her insurance would pay to fix them.

Vouchers don't come into this.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 30/03/2023 14:46

You are conflating issues with payouts from your owninsurance policy and the 3rd party cover which covers damage you do yourself to someone else's property.

No, I do get it. In this scenario, OP's insurance company would indeed be liable for all damage caused by their policyholder, regardless of whose loss (if all had been declared) - but they still aren't going to pay more for somebody else's property that was damaged by one of their policyholders than they can justify/claim that it was worth.

Just because you were the wronged party doesn't mean that you can name your price to the other person's insurance company and they will pay it without quibble.

Obviously, the vouchers were referring to cases such as burglaries where jewellery or electronic devices or similar are stolen/damaged and claimed for on home insurance - not claims for car insurance.

DMLady · 30/03/2023 14:50

SofiaSoFar · 29/03/2023 22:44

Does he know what he's doing?

If he does, presumably he knows the difference between non-disclosure and misrepresentation, before he starts throwing words like "fraud" around.

Show quote history

Yes, he knows what he’s doing, thanks. Good of you to check, though.

T1Dmama · 30/03/2023 14:51

why do people bother to ask for advice / opinions on here if they’re not even going to bother to answer questions or respond?!…. If people have taken the time to give advice (as some people who work in insurance have), then the least @CountryGirl17 could do is take a few minutes to update the thread and respond to people!

xogossipgirlxo · 30/03/2023 15:01

Do not pay. It's his fault he was too cheap to pay few pounds extra.

SofiaSoFar · 30/03/2023 15:02

...but they still aren't going to pay more for somebody else's property that was damaged by one of their policyholders than they can justify/claim that it was worth.

Just because you were the wronged party doesn't mean that you can name your price to the other person's insurance company and they will pay it without quibble.

But he won't be unjustifiably plucking a number out of thin air.

His camper will go to a body shop. They will quote for the damage repairing.

If it has fancy paintwork that will cost £2,000 to fix, they will quote for that. If it has plain paintwork that will cost £500, they'll quote for that. If it has a bent wheel that will cost £500 to replace they will quote it, as they would if it had a basic standard wheel that costs £100

The point is, they will pay to fix the damage to his particular vehicle. Not to fix a completely standard one just because that's what it's insured as (if that really is the case).

Oblomov23 · 30/03/2023 15:26

I can't believe you didn't tell your insurers the truth. This is a big mistake. Did you lie? How did you explain to insurance damaging yours without mentioning another car. You are liable.

What damage did you do to your car re the £1500. What damage to his? And how much to repair.

JustAnotherManicMomday · 30/03/2023 15:33

Tell him it goes through on the claim or it doesn't. That's the only options. Problem now is if you contact your insurance they will want to know why you lied to begin with not telling them about his car being involved. Seperate claim is seperate excess. If he wants he can claim on his insurance saying someone hit him when parked outside his home.

Twofortheteam · 30/03/2023 18:41

SofiaSoFar · 30/03/2023 15:02

...but they still aren't going to pay more for somebody else's property that was damaged by one of their policyholders than they can justify/claim that it was worth.

Just because you were the wronged party doesn't mean that you can name your price to the other person's insurance company and they will pay it without quibble.

But he won't be unjustifiably plucking a number out of thin air.

His camper will go to a body shop. They will quote for the damage repairing.

If it has fancy paintwork that will cost £2,000 to fix, they will quote for that. If it has plain paintwork that will cost £500, they'll quote for that. If it has a bent wheel that will cost £500 to replace they will quote it, as they would if it had a basic standard wheel that costs £100

The point is, they will pay to fix the damage to his particular vehicle. Not to fix a completely standard one just because that's what it's insured as (if that really is the case).

This is correct, up to the "fair" value of the vehicle. If the repairs cost more than the reasonable value of the vehicle, the insurer will pay that amount, and then they own the damaged vehicle.

The owner can't argue that it's especially valuable to him, and therefore he should be able to get it repaired regardless of cost.

CrocodilesCry · 30/03/2023 21:26

Twofortheteam · 30/03/2023 18:41

This is correct, up to the "fair" value of the vehicle. If the repairs cost more than the reasonable value of the vehicle, the insurer will pay that amount, and then they own the damaged vehicle.

The owner can't argue that it's especially valuable to him, and therefore he should be able to get it repaired regardless of cost.

Show quote history

He can argue it actually. In fact some insurers will repair an economical write off if their client was wholly at fault.
It happened to me - my car was hit in a car park while I was at work, it would have been written off but the other party's insurance covered the full cost of repair. I didn't even have to argue with them over it.

Repair cost more than the vehicle was worth - they were insured by Churchill if I remember correctly and it was their policy at the time at least when their client was wholly at fault.

Still so much misinfo on this thread. Even if the employee's van is untaxed and uninsured, OP's insurance would have to pay the cost of the repairs.

But it sounds like she's lied to them, screwed it all up and will never return to the thread regardless.

DadBodAlready · 30/03/2023 22:10

Absolutely not. Put it through Insurance.
You're feeling bad because you know him. What if it was somebody hitting him at a traffic light.
No the fact he hasn't maintained his paperwork and has made mods to the vehicle is on him. Plus if you hit him in the carpark, you couldn't have been going that fast so how bad can the damage be.

Kazzyhoward · 31/03/2023 10:35

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

For example, suppose you have an immaculate well-kept 25yo car that you have owned since it was new, so that you know all of its foibles and history, their only solution will be to give you the same value as you would pay for a similar money-pit 25yo car bought from a complete stranger, which is absolutely not a like-for-like replacement at all.

That's not true at all. A moronic neighbour wrote off my 15 year old car (little damage but their insurer claimed it was economically not viable for them to pay to repair).

I "negotiated" hard with her insurer's loss adjuster, based on one owner since new, very low mileage, immaculate condition (I sent pictures to prove it), full service history, etc., and got a settlement of £3,000 which was double their original offer of £1,500, which was based on "average" used car prices of that make and model and age of car.

I then bought the car back from the insurer for £250 and got the repairs done for £1500, so in the end I made a "profit" out of it! Her insurer also had to pay for a month of car hire and other costs!

"Like for like" means like for like, in terms of all aspects, i.e. mileage, condition, age, service history, etc.

OrraBoralis · 31/03/2023 11:40

Fansandblankets · 28/03/2023 14:18
Something fishy here. All policies are covered for travel to and from work.

Absolutely not true. I insured my car for Social and Domestic, I don't commute and didn't think anything of it. I later wanted to put my son on my insurance and because he would have been using my car to go to work I had to specify that he was using it to commute to one workplace. Perhaps you should check the small print...

NotAJammyDodger · 01/04/2023 12:50

This is crazy.

You hit a car, told the owner of said car. Informed your insurance company that you hit said car. Nothing to do with your firm or HR.

Even if was a company car you hit would still be via insurance firms to sort.

We all make mistakes when driving.

Let your insurance company deal with end of.

if this was a case you backed into a Supermarket would you be stressing about.

NotAJammyDodger · 01/04/2023 12:52

And I don’t think OP lied to her insurance company based on the original post. She backed into an unoccupied car. Well that happens

Moser85 · 01/04/2023 15:14

NotAJammyDodger · 01/04/2023 12:52

And I don’t think OP lied to her insurance company based on the original post. She backed into an unoccupied car. Well that happens

From the OP she said..

To protect him, I’ve submitted my claim but not involved my colleague. They haven’t questioned it and the claim is going through just fine, which is good. My colleague isn’t bothered that I not telling the complete truth to my insurance company.

And yes it does happens, but the owner of the unoccupied car would normally claim off the person who hit their car

LEJEPSON826710 · 03/04/2023 20:14

Woah, wait a minute. YOU hit your employee's vehicle, and just because they do not have insurance you are not responsible to get it fixed?? Wow, entitlement to the max. No matter is they have or have not any insurance, YOU HIT THEIR CAR. Period. Exclamation mark. End of discussion. Put in a claim, it's why YOU have insurance for crying out loud. And stop disrespecting your employees. Wow, if my boss treated me like that, it would not end well. YATA, do the right thing, cheapo. LOL. Sorry for the tone, but this really put me over.....I can see if it wasn't your fault, but you already said it was. Man up.

Comefromaway · 03/04/2023 20:17

Maybe read the OP properly

Moser85 · 03/04/2023 21:11

@LEJEPSON826710
If you read it properly you would see that the other person did not want the OP to claim for the damage to his car on her insurance. OP was perfectly happy to do so.

The employee instead wanted her to pay cash to fix it.
Which is ridiculous.