Car insurance refusing payout - now threatening court

[ditzzy]

Someone reversed into the family car in the summer in a car park. No question of fault, we were nowhere near it and the driver immediately came to find us, apologised and handed over insurance details.

We handed everything over to the insurance company who sent a like for like hire car for three days while ours was fixed. It wasn’t a massive bump, but the bumper had to be taken off and some sensors replaced as well as cosmetic clean up.

All seemed fine until a few months later when our insurance said that their insurance was now refusing to pay up, citing that it was too expensive for the damage caused (£2000 of which £1600 was repair, £400 hire car).

The insurance company is fighting it on our behalf but DH has now been told that it’s going to court and he needs to be prepared for a court appearance!!

Is it just me, or is this ridiculous for a car park bump?

Has anyone else had this happen?

The wonderful world of insurance. Where you can’t get it fixed by a cheap local mechanic instead having to use ‘a recommended mechanic’. Who no doubt gives a cut or has an agreement with the insurer! Pushing up costs.

There was a thread on here recently about the scam that is hire cars.

I know someone who had similar - it never went to court. It got settled prior.

It just seems to be a way of dragging it out and a wise person once told me ‘ if it doesn’t make sense it’s because part of the tale is missing’. And with insurance that part is usually £s and profit that we aren’t aware of.

The regulator should regulate this nonsense. Get three quotes and email to the paying insurer. Paying Insurer chooses from
the three and settles the bill.

Bet it would save money (but create less profit).

Now it’s all ‘preferred’ garages. And expensive courtesy cars. The consumer isn’t winning from this as you end up with unresolved claims at renewal time that push up the premium. And stress and worry about them not paying up and having to take time off for court.

Sorry op I hope you get it sorted.

Thanks @Atissues at least if it’s not completely unheard of then we’re hopefully not walking into a scam!

DH is the kind of guy who needs to read every line of small print on everything so he’s tearing his hair out with the legal documents they keep sending him to sign (usually with a note saying not to worry about them just sign it; which never sounds good).

I guess the lawyers are the ones making a bob or two out of it all at the expense of DHs stress level

@Atissues Yes, the car hire scam is ridiculous. A van hit my DS’s car in traffic. Our local garage is one of the recommended ones for repair and as it’s a friend who runs it, told him to be clear about only wanting car hire for a couple of days. When the hire car turned up it stated minimum of 10 days, my DS wouldn’t sign it and told them he only wanted it for a couple of days. After a phone call it was agreed for 4 days and even then we had to ring them to collect it as they weren’t in any hurry.

Op, I shouldn’t think it will make it to Court, but you never know.

Your DH won’t need to appear in court, unless anyone contests his statement that he wasn’t in the car at the time. And that’s extremely unlikely, given the driver has presumably already stated that your car was unoccupied. This is all between the insurance companies and the garage. Your insurance told you which garage to take it to, they fixed it, charged an amount that your insurers agreed to, now the other insurance company says it’s too much. It’s between the 3 of them to thrash it out. Nothing to do with you or your DH.

Does sound alot of money for a minor bump. But I agree that the insurance companies need to sort it out.

I hope you’re right! That is how I’ve seen it all along but the messages coming through to us have got more serious looking until this one today that DH has to sign that states his preference between appearing in court in person or via zoom link.

It’s just one thing after another this year. The car in question completely broke down a few weeks later, if they’d written it off as part of that bump it would have been far more convenient (not that we’d have seen it that way if it had happened, we had no idea it was about to break anyway)

Just coming back to say that we’ve now been given a court date (in May). Sounds like it’s just a big misunderstanding on the other persons insurance company’s behalf, but I’ve now got a grumpy, stressed DH for the next few months

I had similar - dragged on for over 2 years - my insurance company ended up taking the other insurance company to court and I had to
make statements etc then got a court date - even booked the day off work - they settled in full 2 days before court hearing

Hopefully they call it off before! Even if it’s a few hours before it would be better than it happening, DH suffers from anxiety (to the point that he’s not working at the moment) so it’s going to be a nightmare if he actually has to go into the court.

Just check you actually claimed on your insurance and they didn't refer you to an accident management company! Do you know who provided the hire car etc? Kindertons are a common AMC

That’s normal. There may be a dispute re total costs. Hire car, labour etc.

It showed up on the insurance schedule on renewal as a “not our fault claim” or whatever the technical phrase is

I had a bump last year. Totally my fault. Apologised to the other owner and we swapped details and I reported it to my insurance company. No damage to my car so thought no more of it.

Received a letter from my insurance company to say not to worry but it was going to court. I had legal cover so they sorted it all out for me. Basically the other driver’s insurance let them hire an expensive loan car for weeks. They then presented the bill to my insurance company who said er, no, we’re not paying that. I never heard any more. I had legal cover so it didn’t involve me.

It probably won’t even involve you or your husband. Let the insurance company handle it all, it’s what you pay them for. Speak to them and ask them if they can sort out all the paperwork without having to send you copies of everything.

It's unlikely to go to court. The other insurance company will most likely settle before this.
Your insurance company are defending your claim and would have asked your husband as he will make a credible witness. The cost of the litigation is going to be more than the claim itself and if they lose they'll have to pay fees.
If your car was unroadworthy then there's no dispute for the hire car.
I don't think your insurance company had much choice as the other one seems way out of line!
Fingers crossed they settle before x

I used to work in this field (although it was a while ago now!) and the chance of it getting to the actual court case is very slim.

At this point in a claim where it is only the damages that need to be agreed it is a game of bluff. The responsible person solicitor has probably made a low offer and your solicitor thinks they could beat it at court so have issued court proceedings. This is a gamble for your solicitors as if the court agrees with the offer on the table then there are cost implications (for them not you - you will be covered via your insurance). However they can claim more costs once they issue the court proceedings (even if it settles the next day) which is why they are so keen to do so as quickly as possible.

If your case does get to court and he has to give evidence (really really unlikely) it would be very straight forward is this your statement and is it correct type thing. Chances are in the rare chance it does get to court the solicitors would agree his statement before hand to save the courts time as judges don't like their time wasted on anything that can be settled beforehand.

It seems like a huge thing to your husband but his file handler probably has a target of issuing court proceedings 15+ times a month. This is how they make their money.

Your dh is only being called as a witness, he's not being sued

The previous post is very good advice.

It might help if I explain a bit about the “fighting it on our behalf” aspect.

You have an insurance policy with the insurer, which is a contract between you and them. Under that policy, they agreed to pay to fix your car and provide a hire car. They did that.

Your insurers now want to recover their outlay from the party that caused the damage, let’s call him Johnny No Mirrors. That claim is covered by Johnny’s insurance.

An insurer recovering their outlay like this is called a “subrogated claim”. However, because of the way that English law works, the claim against Johnny can’t be brought in the insurer’s name, it has to name you as the Claimant (and Johnny, not his insurers, as Defendant). There is a standard clause in all insurance policies that says “If we bring a subrogated claim, you must provide reasonable assistance to us in the pursuit of that claim”. This is a term of the policy, in return for which you got your payout.

In this case, the other side are, as explained above, playing hard ball. It’s just a tactic. But your DH as policyholder does have a duty to assist his insurer in responding to the tactic. However in practical terms the insurers will sort it all out between themselves. All your DH has to do is say that he wasn’t there at the time, what his interaction was with Johnny when you discovered what had happened, and that his insurers decided what to pay for the repair. He’s not on trial or under any sort of suspicion. And, as explained above, this is very very unlikely to go to a trial anyway. Insurance companies who deal with this stuff all the time forget that it’s scary and unusual for laypeople and they need to explain better.

You should also understand that, as long as you provide the requested assistance and tell the truth, there will be zero comeback for you if the claim fails.

We had exactly the same scenario, by the way. A delivery van hit our car in our street, we weren’t even at home at the time. Our neighbour got the reg. Our insurers paid us out in full. The driver’s insurers defended the claim, we got an email asking for a written statement, I wrote a 5 line email reiterating what had happened and we never heard anything again.

You say the car broke down completely a little while after the repairs so was it an older car? Do you know the value of the car at the time of the accident? Who assessed the damage and needed repairs? Your insurance or the other party's insurance? If it was worth less than the cost of repairs (and your insurance valued the repairs) they may be claiming the car should have been a write off and should have never been repaired in the first place.

This is completely irrelevant to OP though. She was paid out under her policy. The decision about how much to pay her was made by her insurers. That may eventually mean that they don’t recover their outlay but there will be no consequence for OP if they don’t.

The waters are muddied a bit because the main dispute in the claim is most likely about “quantum” ie the value of the claim. OP and her DH cannot give any meaningful evidence about that.
However, because the claim is being contested generally, the insurers want to dot their “i”s and cross their “t”s by also putting forward factual evidence about how the damage occurred.

This could be true but at the end of the day, could they have written the car off for significantly less than 2k and is the difference more than what it will cost them to send a solicitor for a day in court? Realistically they are arguing over a few hundred pounds.

Its all just posturing between the insurance companies and will probably be settled.

We've had the same recently, it dragged on for 18 months. We'd got a court date in place, and then a few days before they suddenly paid up

That’s different. OP has already been paid out in full.

This is not a dispute between her and her insurers.

I was trying to pont out the evidence they are asking the OPs husband for may be in relation to the value/condition of the car before the accident. But as you said it will likely not reach court.