Insurance Help

irelandspurs

My neighbor crashed his car on Friday morning but was only covered Third party only as he was named driver on his wife's car.We have since found out that he crashed due to a slurry spill and 4 other cars crashed in the same place and road was closed all weekend so they could clean it.
Is there anyway he can claim off the farmer who spilt the slurry.

TGi666

This hardly happened just outside of Portarlington by any chance?

irelandspurs

Yes just past the bad bend on the monasterevin rd

Kenny Logins

Ouch. There's a road close to my home that was covered in sh!te yesterday, I came around the band and slid a little. Was wondering about liability in a situation like this.

TGi666

I think my sister reported it to the council but nowt got done, I'm not 100% sure but I think she did
Also I would advise talking to a solicitor about who's liable

shooter88

irelandspurs wrote: »

My neighbor crashed his car on Friday morning but was only covered Third party only as he was named driver on his wife's car.We have since found out that he crashed due to a slurry spill and 4 other cars crashed in the same place and road was closed all weekend so they could clean it.
Is there anyway he can claim off the farmer who spilt the slurry.

Its to late now but if you had have been quick enough you could have claimed off the farmer who spilt the slurry..unless the gards noted it was cause of accident

irelandspurs

He was taken to hospital and doesn't remember much.He doesn't speak much English so the insurance etc are finding it hard to understand him.

Del2005

irelandspurs wrote: »

He was taken to hospital and doesn't remember much.He doesn't speak much English so the insurance etc are finding it hard to understand him.

Tell him to get in contact with the MIBI if they can't find the farmer.

irelandspurs

This is the damage to his car,the car was recovered to a garage in Portlaoise and they rang him with a price to fix it which was very very very expensive,then they offered to buy it off him for €2000.

MugMugs

If he can prove that the farmer spilled the slurry then he MAY have a chance to claim. Bull sh1t I know but thems the strokes

irelandspurs

MugMugs wrote: »

If he can prove that the farmer spilled the slurry then he MAY have a chance to claim. Bull sh1t I know but thems the strokes

Yeah every one we called said the same,think he will just cut his loses and get it repaired.

For Paws

irelandspurs wrote: »

My neighbor crashed his car on Friday morning but was only covered Third party only as he was named driver on his wife's car.We have since found out that he crashed due to a slurry spill and 4 other cars crashed in the same place and road was closed all weekend so they could clean it.
Is there anyway he can claim off the farmer who spilt the slurry.

A number of different points brought up here.

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving. If the policy is a Comprehensive policy, then he is also covered comprehensively, and can make a claim against his (her) own insurers. Conversly, if his wife's policy is a Third party only policy, then he cannot make a claim for the damage to his vehicle.
If he was driving with 'the consent of the policy holder' (Driving with the Owners Consent) the cover is reduced to Third party only level.

(2) His / her Insurers may argue that the vehicle is a 'write off' (cost of repair being estimated as greater than the vehicle's pre-accident value) & pay a claim only on that basis.

(3) He cannot sue the person who is responsible for the slurry spill unless he identifies that person, and he cannot proceed to make a claim against the MIBI unless that person is himself uninsured.

He needs to
(1) inform his (his wife's) own insurer
(2) Get as much detail from the Gardai as possible
(3) Get as much detail of the other vehicles & their drivers affected as possible and pass this along to his insurers.

irelandspurs

For Paws wrote: »

A number of different points brought up here.

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving. If the policy is a Comprehensive policy, then he is also covered comprehensively, and can make a claim against his (her) own insurers. Conversly, if his wife's policy is a Third party only policy, then he cannot make a claim for the damage to his vehicle.
If he was driving with 'the consent of the policy holder' (Driving with the Owners Consent) the cover is reduced to Third party only level.

(2) His / her Insurers may argue that the vehicle is a 'write off' (cost of repair being estimated as greater than the vehicle's pre-accident value) & pay a claim only on that basis.

(3) He cannot sue the person who is responsible for the slurry spill unless he identifies that person, and he cannot proceed to make a claim against the MIBI unless that person is himself uninsured.

He needs to
(1) inform his (his wife's) own insurer
(2) Get as much detail from the Gardai as possible
(3) Get as much detail of the other vehicles & their drivers affected as possible and pass this along to his insurers.

Thanks i'm not sure what insurance his wife has i think it maybe tpft but will find out.The wife's insurance 123.ie don't seem to want to know anyway.

MugMugs

For Paws wrote: »

A number of different points brought up here.

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving. If the policy is a Comprehensive policy, then he is also covered comprehensively, and can make a claim against his (her) own insurers. Conversly, if his wife's policy is a Third party only policy, then he cannot make a claim for the damage to his vehicle.
If he was driving with 'the consent of the policy holder' (Driving with the Owners Consent) the cover is reduced to Third party only level.

Interesting.

So no matter what, a Named driver has comp cover if the main insured also has comp cover? There's no chance whatsoever of the named driver being TPFT?

RootX

MugMugs wrote: »

There's no chance whatsoever of the named driver being TPFT?

There are some restrictions I believe; my policy with RSA states the following:

60. Third Party Fire and Theft Restriction for Drivers under age 25
We will not pay for loss of or damage to Your Car under Section 3 if it is being driven by or is in the charge of anyone under 25 years of age.

62. Third Party Fire and Theft Restriction for Specified Drivers
We will not pay for loss of or damage to Your Car under Section 3 if it is being driven by or is in the charge of any person specifically named in this Endorsement.

63. Third Party Fire and Theft Restriction for Provisional Licence Holders
We will not pay for loss of or damage to Your Car under Section 3 if it is being driven by or is in the charge of any person who holds a Provisional Driving Licence.

MugMugs

RootX wrote: »

There are some restrictions I believe; my policy with RSA states the following:

Indeed.

All policies whilst generally suited to uniform each other can be very different in what they will and won't cover. To say that all policies with a named driver automatically cover the named driver under COMP would be an extremely inaccurate statement.

Not all policies automatically cover named drivers to the exact same level of cover as the Policyholder.

For Paws

MugMugs wrote: »

Interesting.

So no matter what, a Named driver has comp cover if the main insured also has comp cover? There's no chance whatsoever of the named driver being TPFT?

To clarify ;

A Policy lists all the risks and limitations that apply to all Policy holders.

A Certificate of Insurance specifies, amongst other things, the Persons, or Classes of Persons whose liability is covered.

If the Policy holder has Comprehensive cover then the driving of persons named on the Certificate is covered comprehensively.

Unless the named driver is driving some other vehicle, or driving the vehicle insured in a manner that is specifically excluded in the Certificate (rallying, for hire, commercial travelling are common examples of exclusions) and providing that the driver holds a suitable licence to drive the vehicle, then
the named driver is covered to the same extent as the policy holder.

For Paws

MugMugs wrote: »

Indeed.

All policies whilst generally suited to uniform each other can be very different in what they will and won't cover. To say that all policies with a named driver automatically cover the named driver under COMP would be an extremely inaccurate statement.

Not all policies automatically cover named drivers to the exact same level of cover as the Policyholder.

Incorrect.
Policies don't have Named Drivers
Certificates of Insurance list, amongst other things, the
Persons, or Classes of Persons, whose liability is covered.

Can you point out where I stated that 'all policies with a named driver automatically cover the named driver under COMP' ?

MugMugs

For Paws wrote: »

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving. If the policy is a Comprehensive policy, then he is also covered comprehensively, and can make a claim against his (her) own insurers.

For Paws wrote: »

Incorrect.
Policies don't have Named Drivers
Certificates of Insurance list, amongst other things, the
Persons, or Classes of Persons, whose liability is covered.

Can you point out where I stated that 'all policies with a named driver automatically cover the named driver under COMP' ?

Listen, I've no interest in playing the pedant game.

For Paws wrote: »

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving. If the policy is a Comprehensive policy, then he is also covered comprehensively, and can make a claim against his (her) own insurers.

Bull sh1t of the highest order. You don't know anything about the OP's neighbours circumstances to warrant that statement. You inferred that if the neighbours wife was covered COMP then so was the partner. That's incorrect.

For Paws

MugMugs wrote: »

Listen, I've no interest in playing the pedant game.



Bull sh1t of the highest order. You don't know anything about the OP's neighbours circumstances to warrant that statement. You inferred that if the neighbours wife was covered COMP then so was the partner. That's incorrect.

I did not infer anything. My use of the word 'If' by definition excludes inference.

You say that I'm incorrect, but do not say why.

Please don't refer to my opinion as 'Bull sh1t'.

Having no interest in being a pedant does not relieve you from being correct in your statements, particularly in response to others.

Perhaps you are an Insurance professional ?

MugMugs

For Paws wrote: »

I did not infer anything. My use of the word 'If' by definition excludes inference.

You say that I'm incorrect, but do not say why.

Please don't refer to my opinion as 'Bull sh1t'.

Having no interest in being a pedant does not relieve you from being correct in your statements, particularly in response to others.

Perhaps you are an Insurance professional ?

Your use of the word IF is irrelevant and the evidence to show that you are wrong is in this thread. It's obvious that you're speaking through your back side.

The pivotal part of your statement is "opinion" your opinion is your opinion, it doesn't make it right and if it's not right then it's bull sh1t. Use the report function if this offends you.

For Paws wrote: »

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving. If the policy is a Comprehensive policy, then he is also covered comprehensively, and can make a claim against his (her) own insurers.

This is factually incorrect as shown by this post.

RootX wrote: »

There are some restrictions I believe; my policy with RSA states the following:

60. Third Party Fire and Theft Restriction for Drivers under age 25
We will not pay for loss of or damage to Your Car under Section 3 if it is being driven by or is in the charge of anyone under 25 years of age.

62. Third Party Fire and Theft Restriction for Specified Drivers
We will not pay for loss of or damage to Your Car under Section 3 if it is being driven by or is in the charge of any person specifically named in this Endorsement.

63. Third Party Fire and Theft Restriction for Provisional Licence Holders
We will not pay for loss of or damage to Your Car under Section 3 if it is being driven by or is in the charge of any person who holds a Provisional Driving Licence.

For Paws

MugMugs wrote: »

Your use of the word IF is irrelevant and the evidence to show that you are wrong is in this thread. It's obvious that you're speaking through your back side.

The pivotal part of your statement is "opinion" your opinion is your opinion, it doesn't make it right and if it's not right then it's bull sh1t. Use the report function if this offends you.


This is factually incorrect as shown by this post.

Do you have some difficulty understanding the use of the word 'If' ?

The 'evidence' you quote is a section from another person's Policy Document in regard to exclusions. It does not prove or disprove anything.

Are you confusing 'any person specifically named in the endorsement' with a person named on an Insurance Certificate ?

Do you always react like this when someone says you are incorrect ?

Perhaps you might like to have a chat with an Insurance professional about whether my opinion has any veracity before replying.
If you do, and you choose to quote them, please identify them.

RootX

The 'evidence' is RSA's motorpolicy and can be obtained from 123.ie website (OP mentioned their friend is with 123.ie). It is not a custom policy applying to myself alone and, imho, the same policy applies to OP's friends.

I don't recall the OP mentioning any specifics with regards to the named driver's age/license, therefore your statement, at least to myself, seems inaccurate.

For Paws

RootX wrote: »

The 'evidence' is RSA's motorpolicy and can be obtained from 123.ie website (OP mentioned their friend is with 123.ie). It is not a custom policy applying to myself alone and, imho, the same policy applies to OP's friends.

I don't recall the OP mentioning any specifics with regards to the named driver's age/license, therefore your statement, at least to myself, seems inaccurate.

Don't believe anyone had referred to your Policy as 'a custom one'.

But it is still just a list of exclusions from a Policy, and only seems to refer to specific instances in relation to Third Party, Fire & Theft coverage.

A 'person specifically mentioned in an endorsement' is not a Named Driver.

The OP has stated that the driver 'was only covered Third party only as he was named driver on his wife's car'.
My intention was to point out that this is not necessarily the case.

The OP does not make any mention 'with regards to the named driver's age/license', and neither did I.

The only mention I made of Licence was the commonly included wording included on Certificates of Insurance.
(Is it on your Certificate ?)

RootX

For Paws wrote: »

The OP has stated that the driver 'was only covered Third party only as he was named driver on his wife's car'.
My intention was to point out that this is not necessarily the case.

Thanks for that, for some reason I had the impression that named drivers are TP&T by default which turns out not to be the case.

For Paws wrote: »

The OP does not make any mention 'with regards to the named driver's age/license', and neither did I.

I'm not saying you did but it appears there are some exceptions to the 'rule'(for example age, type of licence, etc) that weren't mentioned in your post. It sounded as if all named drivers, without exception, 'inherit' the cover of the policy holder.

For Paws

RootX wrote: »

Thanks for that, for some reason I had the impression that named drivers are TP&T by default which turns out not to be the case.


I'm not saying you did but it appears there are some exceptions to the 'rule'(for example age, type of licence, etc) that weren't mentioned in your post. It sounded as if all named drivers, without exception, 'inherit' the cover of the policy holder.

Yes, you're quite right. There can be Exclusions : Take the example of Joe being the named driver on Mick's Insurance Certificate. Mick is over 25, but Joe is not. If Mick has paid for Comprehensive coverage then he is covered comprehensively, but if Mick's Policy specifically says that under 25's are only covered TP only, then Joe has only TP cover.

But if Joe is over 25 and is not excluded from cover for any other reason, then Joe (as a Named Driver) has the same level of cover as Mick. So Exclusions are called exclusions for the good reason that they are exceptions to the norm, and the norm is that named drivers have the same level of cover as the Insured, unless Excluded.

MugMugs

For Paws wrote: »

Do you have some difficulty understanding the use of the word 'If' ?

The 'evidence' you quote is a section from another person's Policy Document in regard to exclusions. It does not prove or disprove anything.

Are you confusing 'any person specifically named in the endorsement' with a person named on an Insurance Certificate ?

Do you always react like this when someone says you are incorrect ?

Perhaps you might like to have a chat with an Insurance professional about whether my opinion has any veracity before replying.
If you do, and you choose to quote them, please identify them.

It seems you have the difficulty here.

Allow me to break it down for you.

For Paws wrote: »

(1) If the driver is named in his wife's policy he has the same cover as she would have if she was driving.

Now I will rewrite that as to how it is quite easily interpreted.
"In the event that the driver is a named driver on his wife's policy then he has the same cover she would have if she was driving"

That's exactly how it comes across and that's absolutely incorrect for the very reason given above.

For Paws wrote: »

The 'evidence' you quote is a section from another person's Policy Document in regard to exclusions. It does not prove or disprove anything.

No, it's a sample taken from RSA. It shows you are wrong and that in certain circumstances irrespective of the policyholder being cover Comp that the named driver is still only covered for Third Party. That's actually quite clear. I can't see how this is causing you confusion

For Paws wrote: »

Are you confusing 'any person specifically named in the endorsement' with a person named on an Insurance Certificate ?

No and I can't see how you've drawn that conclusion.

For Paws wrote: »

Do you always react like this when someone says you are incorrect ?

Act like what? Correct somebody spouting rubbish? Then yes.

For Paws wrote: »

Perhaps you might like to have a chat with an Insurance professional about whether my opinion has any veracity before replying.
If you do, and you choose to quote them, please identify them.

:rolleyes:

For Paws

MugMugs wrote: »

It seems you have the difficulty here.

Allow me to break it down for you.

Now I will rewrite that as to how it is quite easily interpreted.
"In the event that the driver is a named driver on his wife's policy then he has the same cover she would have if she was driving"

That's exactly how it comes across and that's absolutely incorrect for the very reason given above.

No, it's a sample taken from RSA. It shows you are wrong and that in certain circumstances irrespective of the policyholder being cover Comp that the named driver is still only covered for Third Party. That's actually quite clear. I can't see how this is causing you confusion


No and I can't see how you've drawn that conclusion.

Act like what? Correct somebody spouting rubbish? Then yes.

:rolleyes:

You still don't get it.
Where in the sample does it mention Comprehensive, or Named Driver ?

Go back to sleep pal

biko

Play nice, thank you.

MugMugs

For Paws wrote: »

You still don't get it.
Where in the sample does it mention Comprehensive, or Named Driver ?

Go back to sleep pal

It doesn't have to state named driver. It's a much broader sweep if it doesn't. I just don't understand what you're attempting here but my point stands. Your initial statement is wholly incorrect.