Admiral not paying out on claims..

[tut]

Isn't it great to have our very own "0800 won't rip u off.com" lawyer as a member.

However they do spell "definetaly" different than the rest of us.



tut

[robin]

OK, maybe liable is the wrong term.

You are liable for the 3rd party loss.

You are required to have insurance against this.

Motor Insurers are required to issue USEFUL insurance for this liability. In other words, you should not be able to get motor insurance that fails to insure your liability in this respect.

Is there a scenario in which your liability will not result in the insurance company being liable? Perhaps.

If insurance companies can evade their liabilities (to cover yours) by being incompetent or deliberate stonewalling, and then suggesting that your claim is now invalid because you failed to tell them about something that happened after the date of the claim then surely this would be the logical next step for all money grabbing blood sucking insurers and would defeat the point of mandatory 3rd party insurance?

There's no point in mandatory insurance if it simply results in years of waiting followed by suing the at-fault party followed by them not paying 'cos they cannot?

In fact for the insurers it's a win-win ... they don't pay out any 3rd party claims AND they get to increase the premiums of their customer because they _both_ end up with a claim against their name ...

Were this to become the norm, the government would have to either abandon the requirement for 3rd party insurance (and this is now an EU thing, no?) or they would have to strengthen the legislation to enforce the requirement that 3rd parties are covered without ever having to consider suing the at-fault?

So how many times has it happened that an at-fault but properly insured driver has ended up being sued for the loss and then failed to recover that from their insurer?

I'm beginning to think carrying fake Romanian papers and having no insurance is by far the best insurance .... better yet have Rolfe's telephone number on the back

Cheers,
Robin

[tut]

Just follow the Aussie example, the car has 3rd party insurance included in the licence registration fee, so it is regardless of the driver. The owner can then decide whether to take out Comprehensive.

Obviously it is not infallible, but it's a bloody site better than our system. Plus you can drive any other car knowing that you are covered. How many members on here know without looking at their certificate if they are covered for driving another insured car? It used to be a norm, now it is the opposite.

tut

[AJT]

It was made very clear when I renewed with CCI today that I was not insured to drive other cars on their policy.

[robin]

I am with swift (on the BMW) provided the owner has also got the car insured and I am not a named driver on that policy. It used to be common place on fully comp policies but now varies; as you say you might think you are insured only to discover you aren't.

I hate insurance

Cheers,
Robin

[tut]

snap.........

tut

[BiggestNizzy]

How many members on here know without looking at their certificate if they are covered for driving another insured car? It used to be a norm, now it is the opposite.

tut

I am but I have to let them know and the car does have to be insured by someone.

But like you say I only know because I looked into it.

[tut]

Yep, the other car always has to be insured independently for you to be able to drive it TP on your own insurance.

tut