Car insurance claim process

lau1247

Long story short, I was driving my dad's car (Named driver, also have my own insurance for my own car) last weekend and at a junction (Stationary while waiting for traffic light), I was hit from behind (Minor, nothing serious but bumper was damaged).

I have never been involve in an accident to date (long may it continue) so this process is a bit new to me but I do know enough to get the insurance detail, contact detail etc and I took photos of the damages also. We agreed to check out the cost first in case the person wanted to settle outside of insurance which is all fine and well. I also reported to my insurer on the day and have it recorded just in case.

I got a quote to carry out the repair and called the person to ask which way to proceed. It was decided to go through insurance. One thing that was said to me during the call was that the person's insurer (FBD) would only carry out repair through their approved garage.


Few questions pop up at this stage:

1. Do I need to get my dad to make the claim (It is his car after all)? Or is it irrelevant because I'm a named driver on his policy and the driver on the day?

2. At this point I will need to ring the person's insurer to make the claim. What happen next? Do they send out an assessor to review or do I just drop the car into a garage directly after informing the insurer?

3. Based on what was said about repair to be carried out by FBD approved garages only, is that normal?? Do I (Or my dad) not have a say as to which garage we would like to carry out the repair (We'd obviously like to use any of the car brand's garage [BMW] instead of any 'joe soap' garages).

Just a bit of a newbie in this situation, any input would be helpful. Thanks

bazz26

I'd say you would be the one who contacts the liable party's insurance company as you were the one involved in the accident. However no harm in having your dad present when you ring them in case they need some information from him as the registered owner of the car.

Regarding where the damage is repaired. To my knowledge, as the injured party you (or your dad as it's his car) are entitled to have the car repaired where you see fit, not the liable party or their insurance company. The reason they may try and push their approved repairer is probably because they have an agreement with them in place to get repairs done at a reduced price to them. The only other reason I can think of is if both you and the other party are clients of the same insurance company.

To Elland Back

It is your dad's property, so he is the one claiming damages from the 3rd party

Nothing wrong with an approved repairer, but your dad has the right to go to a garage of his choosing, no debate

Even is you are named on your dad's insurance, you need to advise your own insurer of the incident if you have driving of other cars on your policy. There will be no claim on your insurance from what you say, but it is the primary cover that you were using for the 3rd party aspect when you were driving the car

coylemj

I suspect the OP does not have 'driving other cars' cover on his own policy, if he did he wouldn't need to be named on his father's policy.

If that is the case, he should not inform his own insurance as they won't pay and are not involved.

To Elland Back

If he wanted own damage while he was driving, he would be named. If he has driving of other cars he needs to inform his insurer

coylemj

To Elland Back wrote: »

If he wanted own damage while he was driving, he would be named. If he has driving of other cars he needs to inform his insurer

I don't understand that first sentence - 'if he wanted own damage'???.

Even if he has 'driving other cars' cover on his own policy, there will typically be a stipulation in the policy that if he is covered by the car's own policy then he should claim on that policy.

In most cases with Irish motor policies, the 'driving other cars' cover on your own policy only applies if you borrow a car and are not covered by the car's own policy. This is clearly not the case here as the OP is named on the father's policy so in all probability his own insurance will not cover him.

To Elland Back

I'll try and clarify. He is named under his father's policy because most DOC extensions are for 3rd party only. He needs to be named to cover any own damage to his father's car. You are right about the clause attached to the DOC extension but a similar clause will be on his father's policy for 3rd party aspect. They cancel each other out an the drivers own policy will be involved

cml387

And DOC extension may exclude family members cars. Probably will actually.

lau1247

Thanks all for the reply, really useful insight to the process.

My dad's insurer (Nor mine) is not FBD so that is ok. I will insist on using BMW dealer for the repair in that case.

Interesting about the third party aspect, yes I do have my own policy on my own car that allow me to drive other people's car (my dad's for example). It never occur to me that I will need to inform my own insurer as I thought my dad's insurance would have covered me, I wasn't at fault for the incident and I have informed the primary insurer (My dad's in this case).

I must check this out further.

To Elland Back

lau1247 wrote: »

Thanks all for the reply, really useful insight to the process.

My dad's insurer (Nor mine) is not FBD so that is ok. I will insist on using BMW dealer for the repair in that case.

Interesting about the third party aspect, yes I do have my own policy on my own car that allow me to drive other people's car (my dad's for example). It never occur to me that I will need to inform my own insurer as I thought my dad's insurance would have covered me, I wasn't at fault for the incident and I have informed the primary insurer (My dad's in this case).

I must check this out further.

Take Zurich's policy, for example (I'm terrible t linking, sorry). It contains the following wording


3. Exceptions to Section 1: Liability to Third Parties
The Insurer shall not be liable:

(a) Under No. 2 “Indemnity to other persons”
(i) unless the person driving holds a licence to drive the Insured Vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.
(ii) if, to the knowledge of the person claiming to be indemnified, the person driving does not hold a licence to drive the Insured Vehicle unless the person driving has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.
(iii) if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy.
(iv) unless such person shall, as though he/she were the Insured, observe, fulfil and besubject to the terms, limitations, Exceptions and Conditions of this Policy so far as..............

So, for instance, if you were insured with Zurich and had the above wording and your father was insured with a company with similar conditions, it would mean that neither policy would pick up the tab for a 3rd party claim. As such, both exclusions cancel themselves out and both policies come in to play.

This seems cut and dry that the other party is liable, so it is unlikely any payment will be made against you, but the rules of notifying your insurer of any incident which could give rise to a loss still apply

coylemj

To Elland Back wrote: »

I'll try and clarify. He is named under his father's policy because most DOC extensions are for 3rd party only. He needs to be named to cover any own damage to his father's car.

Right, I get you now - he could have fully comp. cover driving the dad's car because he's named.

To Elland Back wrote: »

You are right about the clause attached to the DOC extension but a similar clause will be on his father's policy for 3rd party aspect. They cancel each other out an the drivers own policy will be involved

Yes, the situation regarding 3rd party cover is interesting - as you say the Ts & Cs in the two policies may point at each other i.e. 'claim off the other policy'. The OP will just have to study the two policy documents to see how to progress it. But at the end of the day it appears to be the other guy's fault so hopefully there will be no claim on either policy.

To Elland Back

coylemj wrote: »

Right, I get you now - he could have fully comp. cover driving the dad's car because he's named.



Yes, the situation regarding 3rd party cover is interesting - as you say the Ts & Cs in the two policies may point at each other i.e. 'claim off the other policy'. The OP will just have to study the two policy documents to see how to progress it. But at the end of the day it appears to be the other guy's fault so hopefully there will be no claim on either policy.

Exactly