My fault but should I pay for the damage?

[CountryGirl17]

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.

Your colleague's right to be annoyed extends only to the inconvenience caused by your driving error. I don't blame him for that. But the dicking around with insurance companies and unnecessary costs incurred due to his own fuck-up is entirely on him.

You should have put it all through your insurance, whether the person you hit is properly insured is none of your concern.

The reason this is problematic is because OP hasn’t been entirely straight with her insurer about what happened. She was foolishly trying to help her colleague and colluding in him hiding information.

All OP can do is to tell her insurer what happened and pass on the details of the person she hit.

There will be no payout without naming him and his vehicle and whatever insurance he does or doesn’t have, coming to light anyway.

The colleague is ooorly informed if he thinks his insurer won’t have to know what has happened. The claim will be on OPs insurance as she is responsible. It won’t be on the colleagues insurance, but his insurer willbe notified of what happened.

I think it is worth OP ringing her insurer again. She can start by asking what will be the process for repairing her car and the colleagues. If she has withheld anything about the accident, it is fairly easy to add further information. Changing the story is of course problematic. And what a shame if OP finds she voids her own insurance through lying. Yes, she caused the accident but had insurance and is willing to use it.

I don’t actually think the fact he’d driven to work will be an issue as OPs insurance will be paying. Worrying about modifications etc and worrying that his insurer will be involved does make me wonder if there’s more going on….does he actually have insurance or is he fully uninsured? He’s hiding something.
Regardless, OP should tell her insurance what happened and go through the official route.

It is not up to someone who has had an accident done to their car to decide how it will be paid for. OP has insurance so it covers her. She can and should claim on her insurance and not pay out if her own pocket. She can tell colleague, that even if that’s what he would like (for whatever reason) she wants to go through insurance and that’s what she will be doing.

I can’t get my head around not being fully honest with your insurance about the incident.

Why MNers get themselves into these scrapes?

You pranged his vehicle of course he will be upset. But accidents happen. You owned it, offered to pay through your insurance, if he’s done something dodgy with his own insurance it’s not even remotely your responsibility.

There doesn't seem much point commenting till this mysterious no-commuter insurance is dealt with. I've never been asked on an insurance form whether I use my car to commute to work, and have always understood that it was fine to do so.

My view is that you should give your insurance company all the details as they are. If he is not insured to commute to work and has modified his car without telling them, then that is his issue to deal with.

Something fishy here. All policies are covered for travel to and from work.

Changing the story is of course problematic. And what a shame if OP finds she voids her own insurance through lying. Yes, she caused the accident but had insurance and is willing to use it.

I know. Why would you risk your insurance policy for the sake of dodgy colleague.

We discovered very recently (when my mum bought a new car last month) that not all policies do include commuting like they used to. We very nearly missed that fact.

Many insurances keep the claim open in case there turn out to be any 3rd parties who later want to claim.

If OP has lied to her insurance and said her vehicle didn’t hit another vehicle or there was no 3rd party invovled and the claim is being settled on that basis, to now say there is a 3rd party is problematic. The lie will be clear.

I’m actually re-thinking this. The colleague was in the wrong to encourage her not to mention him. However, OP is at fault for going along with this. Being honest with the insurer is always key. She has effectively dug herself into a hole that was wholly avoidable. The colleague and HR are in her case, and she’s got herself into a position where telling the insurance what happened will be very difficult. She might well find herself having to pay. That’s not because the colleague was right to say she should pay, but purely because SHE chose to go down the wrong route of lying to the insurance.

She mistakenly thought she was helping colleague, but didn’t think through the consequences.

I actually don’t think the colleague is wholly to blame. Their vehicle has been damaged. They had the right to ask for it to be settled privately, but not for OP to agree. They have a right to be compensated for the damage. If OP wasn’t going to go through her insurance, exactly how did she plan to compensate him for the damage? It either needed to be her paying up or the better option of go8 g through insurance. But she’s closed that door off to herself now. Big error.

So she’s foolishly got herself into the position where colleague needs to be compensated for damage, but she can’t claim on her insurance, so she might well need to lay out if her own pocket. But that is a result of her own choices.

Well at this stage we don't know what Op has told her insurer, we don't know she lied. She might have told them exactly what happened, accepted responsibility and told them that the other car owner refuses to supply his insurance details. If he refuses to deal with the claim through his insurance then he pays for the repairs himself. He should have notified his insurance company and then, if his insurer came back and said he wasn't covered, it would still be his problem, not Op's. I wonder if he's lying and isn't insured at all.
My insurance company classes travel to work as business use I think, maybe that's where this commuting thing comes from, but it's not Op's problem.
Op - you tell your HR people that this is nothing to do with them and you absolutely will not take out a loan to pay for damage that would have been covered by your insurance.

What did you say happened to your car? How do you cause £1500 worth of damage to your own car by driving into a stationary car. Were you on your phone?

You need to tell the insurers the truth. You’re committing fraud

His faulty insurance and irregularities with his vehicle are entirely his responsibility.

It would have come up as an issue at some point for him - it would have been worse if he had hit someone.

Blimey, so you’ve committed insurance fraud by wilfully lying about the circumstances of an accident. If/when your insurance company find out that you omitted to declare you’d hit another vehicle, in order to get your vehicle repaired under the policy, I doubt they will care about the reason why. Paying for the damage to the van you drove in to could end up being the least of your worries.

all these posters syaing theyve never been asked if tghey commute in their car well that poilcy obviously includes it but plenty of others dont

ive always had to choose brtween social only or adding commuting

i still fail to see what it has to do with HR none of their business but you sholdnt have lied to your insurance provider to save him

I have read this thread with increasing annoyance. It is idiots like the OP and her boss tweaking the terms of their agreed insurance policies that mean that mugs like me end up paying out nearly 20% more this year for the same policy. Buy the insurance policy that you need ffs and use it properly if you need to.

@Crumpleton that doesn't mean the car isn't insured. It doesn't mean the policy is invalid. It just means damage caused whilst commuting to work isn't covered.

What it actually means is that insurers might consider increasing the premium to take into account whatever increased risk they think exists because of commuting.

Believe it or not, insurers can't just void policies.
And the guy hasn't done anything wrong. The OP drove into him.

Insisting that the OP pay from their own pocket is unreasonable - although he's entitled to ask.

No they're not. When you arrange your policy it's standard to choose either social and domestic, or social, domestic and commuting. You might just about get away with driving to the train station on the former, but if you drive to your place of work regularly then you need the latter.

Tell him to bugger off!

HE didn't insure his vehicle properly, HE didn't let his insurers know he had "souped it up" (or whatever they call it) - that's HIS responsibilty, not yours.

Let the company lend HIM the money to make the repairs.

Cheeky bugger!

What did you say happened to your cat? It obviously had damage. How did you say this damage occurred?

The trouble is, OP has not returned so we don’t know all the details of what she has said and hasn’t said.

It all sounds fishy to me. The colleague talking about modifications and not having commuting insurance and then adding bits to his insurance after the accident. All very iffy. But likewise, OP sounding like she’s not mentioned the other vehicle and just claiming for her own repairs sounds iffy too.

If colleague hasn’t claimed on his insurance, it’s not him who has committed fraud or lied to the insurer. It’s actually OP. We don’t know quite why she did that, but she has chosen to do it. She says it was to protect colleague, but if that is the reason, she’s opened herself up to owing him money for the damage AND having lied to insurer and not being able to claim for the damage to colleague. She leaves herself with the only option to pay from own pocket.

This seems unlikely that someone would put themselves in this position and for this reason, I think OPs report of what has happened is incomplete or fishy too.

A colleague who has had their car damaged can expect to be compensated for it. He cannot choose how he is compensated but he can expect to be compensated. OP had the choice of how to do it - privately or insurance. But she’s shut the door on one option - her choice, not his.

Regardless of anything else, the OP hit another person's vehicle. Even if her insurer doesn't cover the damage to the employee's van, she is still liable.

The OP also has no idea what modifications have been made. People here have decided it's dodgy based on absolutely nothing at all. What the OP says is that she has suspicions he hasn't told his insurer. Based on nothing at all.

The guy is concerned that insurers won't value the car taking into consider the modifications he's made - and perhaps they won't - and they'll undervalue it and he will come out of this worse when he's done nothing wrong.

The OP has done two things wrong. Lied to her insurer and driven into somebody else's van.

There's nothing wrong with realising that you should've added something extra to your insurance and with hindsight - or a crash - adding it. That's sensible. Unless he was going to claim the damage occurred after he'd added the cover, then he's done nothing wrong.

I too would need to know What Exactly @CountryGirl17 told her insurance. Was it a lie that 'further information' can be added now - or is it an irredeemable lie?

If the latter, then the OP would be best to pay up. It was completely stupid not to tell the whole truth to the Insurance company to begin with but it is what it is