Today's Visit to the A & E

Simon Brooke said the following on 02/11/2006 16:12:

Quoted message said:

Which means you're good for a claim on his insurance, so just claim for a
new Madone

At which the point the driver says "That much for a push bike!!" :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Rudin said:

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Earl Purple said:

You should sue of course, the driver is hopefully insured so his
insurance company will probably pay.

In some cases, with the help of a lawyer, it's easier and quicker to deal
with the driver's insurance company direct rather than sueing. A lot of
people don't seem to realise this is an option if you're a cyclist. It is.

No, the driver's insurance is a contract between the driver and his/her
insurance company. The 3rd party should claim from the party who has
caused the injury, i.e. the driver, and it is then up to the driver to
claim from insurance.

Quoted message said:

There's no point initiating court proceedings if someone agrees to pay
you the amount you intend to sue them for in the first place. You sue
when they won't cough up for damages...

When I said sue I meant claim damages. That means an out-of-court
settlement first if you can.

Earl Purple said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In some cases, with the help of a lawyer, it's easier and quicker
to deal with the driver's insurance company direct rather than
sueing. A lot of people don't seem to realise this is an option
if you're a cyclist. It is.

No,

Yes.

Quoted message said:

the driver's insurance is a contract between the driver and
his/her insurance company. The 3rd party should claim from the party
who has caused the injury, i.e. the driver, and it is then up to the
driver to claim from insurance.

You can write directly to the driver's insurance company and get
compensation directly from them. I know a someone (very well) who has done
this after getting hit when on their bike. They were advised by a barrister
friend specialising in personal injury. I've seen copies of the letters.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Earl Purple said:

Quoted message said:

> In some cases, with the help of a lawyer, it's easier and quicker
> to deal with the driver's insurance company direct rather than
> sueing. A lot of people don't seem to realise this is an option
> if you're a cyclist. It is.

No,

Yes.

Seconded. I've claimed direct from a driver's insurance company before. They
paid up in full, and promptly too - I was impressed. (tho' I wasn't claiming
any personal injury, just bust bike).

cheers,
cliev

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul Boyd

('usenet.dont.work@plusnet') said:

Simon Brooke said the following on 02/11/2006 16:12:

Quoted message said:

Which means you're good for a claim on his insurance, so just claim for
a new Madone

At which the point the driver says "That much for a push bike!!" :-)

That's the bike he damaged. If he'd crashed into a Maclaren F1, I imagine
the bill would be even more.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In some cases, with the help of a lawyer, it's easier and quicker to deal
with the driver's insurance company direct rather than sueing. A lot of
people don't seem to realise this is an option if you're a cyclist. It
is.

Although any claim will be *addressed* to the driver, he would be crazy to
try and get personally involved with the claim as it's almost certainly a
condition of his insurance that he pass any claim *unanswered* to his
insurers as trying to go behind his insurer's backs (ie negotiating directly
with the claimant in the hope of not loosing his NCD) will likely breach
their terms.

Adrian Boliston said:

Although any claim will be *addressed* to the driver, he would be
crazy to try and get personally involved with the claim as it's
almost certainly a condition of his insurance that he pass any claim
*unanswered* to his insurers as trying to go behind his insurer's
backs (ie negotiating directly with the claimant in the hope of not
loosing his NCD) will likely breach their terms.

The letters I mentioned were addressed to and sent to the driver's insurance
company.

~PB

Adrian Boliston said:

Although any claim will be *addressed* to the driver, he would be crazy to
try and get personally involved with the claim as it's almost certainly a
condition of his insurance that he pass any claim *unanswered* to his
insurers as trying to go behind his insurer's backs (ie negotiating directly
with the claimant in the hope of not loosing his NCD) will likely breach
their terms.

Never seen that before. That means any time you are responsible for a
minor scratch that can be fixed for £150 or so maybe, you would be
forced to go through insurance and lose your no claims? My insurance
company doesn't enforce it anyway. Unless there's a claim I don't lose
my bonus. And by a claim, that is by me, not a 3rd party.

Maybe too many of you go for these online insurers inviting you to get
"cheap" insurance without reading the full details of the policy first.
I found such a quote that cut me a £16 but didn't take it when I
actually made an effort to read the terms.

Earl Purple said:

No, the driver's insurance is a contract between the driver and his/her
insurance company. The 3rd party should claim from the party who has
caused the injury, i.e. the driver, and it is then up to the driver to
claim from insurance.

This is one of the few exceptions to the general rule in contract law.
You CAN sue even though you have no contract.

I would recommend the OP to seriously consider appointing a solicitor.
If the blame is attached to the car driver then the car driver will pay
his fees. I am going through something similar. I deal with my
solicitor and he deals with the guilty party's insurance company. This
has led to long delays and negotiations as letters go back and forth.
However, I am claiming for everything I can and am happy to wait for as
long as it takes.

If the insurance company will not cough up enough money the next option
is to take the offender to court. However, this is unlikely to be
necessary because the insurance company should provide a reasonable
level of compensation thereby making more risky court action unwise.

In any case, the OP can't lose much from an initial consultation with a
solicitor.

raisethe said:

I would recommend the OP to seriously consider appointing a solicitor.
If the blame is attached to the car driver then the car driver will pay
his fees. I am going through something similar. I deal with my
solicitor and he deals with the guilty party's insurance company. This
has led to long delays and negotiations as letters go back and forth.
However, I am claiming for everything I can and am happy to wait for as
long as it takes.

If the insurance company will not cough up enough money the next option
is to take the offender to court. However, this is unlikely to be
necessary because the insurance company should provide a reasonable
level of compensation thereby making more risky court action unwise.

In any case, the OP can't lose much from an initial consultation with a
solicitor.

All in progress. The solicitor has been appointed via British Cycling
and was very quick to respond. Luckily, I have everything to hand:

- Police Details
- Driver Details
- Witness Details
- Copies of Hospital reports
- Photographs of injuries
- Maps
- Just waiting on the bike repair report

I also have a spreadsheet with items to be claimed, and receipts! As the
driver has admitted responsibility, it should not be too difficult to
get his insurance comapny to admit liability. As soon as they do, I'll
be looking for an interim payment so I can get my new bike. For once I'm
feeling pretty optimistic!

Rola said the following on 03/11/2006 15:11:
I also have a spreadsheet with items to be claimed, and receipts! As the

Quoted message said:

driver has admitted responsibility, it should not be too difficult to
get his insurance comapny to admit liability. As soon as they do, I'll
be looking for an interim payment so I can get my new bike. For once I'm
feeling pretty optimistic!

As the driver has admitted responsibility, that's pretty clear cut that
you will succeed (but never be sure until you're holding the cheque!).
One of the things insurance companies say to drivers is to never admit
liability, even they're blatantly at fault, which gives the insurers a
chance of being able to wriggle out. The driver admitting
responsibility effectively removes the wriggling out bit!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

Rola said the following on 03/11/2006 15:11:
I also have a spreadsheet with items to be claimed, and receipts! As the

Quoted message said:

driver has admitted responsibility, it should not be too difficult to
get his insurance comapny to admit liability. As soon as they do, I'll
be looking for an interim payment so I can get my new bike. For once I'm
feeling pretty optimistic!

As the driver has admitted responsibility, that's pretty clear cut that
you will succeed (but never be sure until you're holding the cheque!).
One of the things insurance companies say to drivers is to never admit
liability, even they're blatantly at fault, which gives the insurers a
chance of being able to wriggle out. The driver admitting
responsibility effectively removes the wriggling out bit!

when I got knocked of my scooter I only had 3rd party insurance, the
insurers didn't want to know. I was fortunately given the card of a
biker-friendly claims firm from a passing motorcycle instructor. They
too were a bit luke warm, until it came to light a few days later that
the driver had admitted written responsibility to an officer of the Ler
at the scene (whilst I was in an ambulance), whereupon they went into
overdrive and I got a very speedy result (15 months, that's speedy for
insurers). Blame is everything.

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

As the driver has admitted responsibility, that's pretty clear cut that
you will succeed (but never be sure until you're holding the cheque!).
One of the things insurance companies say to drivers is to never admit
liability, even they're blatantly at fault, which gives the insurers a
chance of being able to wriggle out. The driver admitting
responsibility effectively removes the wriggling out bit!

Unless the insurance company then say the driver has thereby broken
the terms of the policy, so they're not going to pay out...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 04 Nov 2006 12:27:31 GMT,

Ian Smith said:

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

As the driver has admitted responsibility, that's pretty clear cut that
you will succeed (but never be sure until you're holding the cheque!).
One of the things insurance companies say to drivers is to never admit
liability, even they're blatantly at fault, which gives the insurers a
chance of being able to wriggle out. The driver admitting
responsibility effectively removes the wriggling out bit!

Unless the insurance company then say the driver has thereby broken
the terms of the policy, so they're not going to pay out...

I'm pretty sure the insurance company isn't allowed to do that for third
party liability (although it might only be injury claims, not damage
claims)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Ian Smith said the following on 04/11/2006 12:27:

Quoted message said:

Unless the insurance company then say the driver has thereby broken
the terms of the policy, so they're not going to pay out...

Hence the "never be sure until you're holding the cheque" bit.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tim Woodall said the following on 04/11/2006 13:28:

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure the insurance company isn't allowed to do that for third
party liability (although it might only be injury claims, not damage
claims)

I think they can refuse to pay out under certain conditions, effectively
making the driver uninsured. Driving a modified car without notifying
the insurers of the mods can invalidate any insurance, for instance, as
can (I believe) driving a car without a current MOT certificate.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:11:51 +0000,

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Tim Woodall said the following on 04/11/2006 13:28:

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure the insurance company isn't allowed to do that for third
party liability (although it might only be injury claims, not damage
claims)

I think they can refuse to pay out under certain conditions, effectively
making the driver uninsured. Driving a modified car without notifying
the insurers of the mods can invalidate any insurance, for instance, as
can (I believe) driving a car without a current MOT certificate.

The second one is certainly an urban myth (at least nobody has ever been
able to provide a policy that has a clause like this when challenged.)

But I'm still pretty certain that they are obliged by law to pay out on
the legal minimum insurance[1] if there is an insurance in force
regardless of any small print. (after all a third party cannot agree to
the small print on the insurance and otherwise an insurance company
could set up that excluded all liability due to driver error which,
barring things like mechanical failure, would then basically allow
people to legally drive uninsured)

[1] This used to be third party injury but I think it's now changed to
full third party.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:11:51 +0000,

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Tim Woodall said the following on 04/11/2006 13:28:

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure the insurance company isn't allowed to do that for third
party liability (although it might only be injury claims, not damage
claims)

I think they can refuse to pay out under certain conditions, effectively
making the driver uninsured. Driving a modified car without notifying
the insurers of the mods can invalidate any insurance, for instance, as
can (I believe) driving a car without a current MOT certificate.

The second one is certainly an urban myth (at least nobody has ever been
able to provide a policy that has a clause like this when challenged.)

My previous (Admiral) policy had a clause saying it would reclaim all
damages resulting from a payout if I were to cause a claim when driving
whilst drunk.

I believe it also said I wasn't covered if driving without a current tax
disc, too, but I'm not going to go and dig it out to check, I'm afraid.

Quoted message said:

But I'm still pretty certain that they are obliged by law to pay out on
the legal minimum insurance[1] if there is an insurance in force
regardless of any small print. (after all a third party cannot agree to
the small print on the insurance and otherwise an insurance company
could set up that excluded all liability due to driver error which,
barring things like mechanical failure, would then basically allow
people to legally drive uninsured)

[1] This used to be third party injury but I think it's now changed to
full third party.

It is indeed. Injury and property damage.