Insurance question - tyre came off and hit other car

clint_silver

Driving last week, had a blow out, tyre flew off, I pulled over, car behind me pulled in front of me said the tyre hit front of his car and caused some damage. It was dark at the time and lashing rain, hard to see.

There's a good few posts online about this, that unless negligence can be proved that the blow out is to all intents and purposes an act of god and if goes to insurance then the company will say theyre not covering it.

Hes going to get an estimate and out of a of good will gesture if its up as far as a couple hundred Ill cover it but any more and Im going to say go to the insurance.

Question is do the insurance company register that as a claim against you that affect your policy even if they turn down the claim?

And if the company say no, is there any small claims that can be taken against me?

CiniO

They can't say no.
Bit from your vehicle came off and hit another car causing damage.
Your third party insurance will cover that.

It makes no difference that it was a tyre or something else.

Isambard

You're over-thinking it....your car has caused damage to the other car , a third party, and you have to have insurance to cover just that.

Atlantic Dawn

Define act of god though here, what brand was the tyre, what condition was it in, when did you last inspect the tyre, when did you last check the air pressure of the tyre etc etc, typically good tyres will not have a blow out.

Henry Ford III

I'd say that was an accident and not an act of god.

It was up to you to satisfy yourself what damage was done and make good for it.

clint_silver

CiniO wrote: »

They can't say no.
Bit from your vehicle came off and hit another car causing damage.
Your third party insurance will cover that.

It makes no difference that it was a tyre or something else.

New tyres went on before christmas for cvt. Could have been a nail, who knows, tyre was lost, was a motorway, dark, raining, I couldnt go back for it with cars flashing by at 100-120kmph.

If insurance say yes and they cover it then thats what we pay insurance for, it is what it is.
But if they say no, and based on several cases Ive read online they may, what happens then? The guy has to claim off his insurance probably if he wants to get it repaired?

I'm only asking what happens the refused claim against my policy if that eventuality happens.

CiniO

clint_silver wrote: »

New tyres went on before christmas for cvt. Could have been a nail, who knows, tyre was lost, was a motorway, dark, raining, I couldnt go back for it with cars flashing by at 100-120kmph.

If insurance say yes and they cover it then thats what we pay insurance for, it is what it is.
But if they say no, and based on several cases Ive read online they may, what happens then? The guy has to claim off his insurance probably if he wants to get it repaired?

I'm only asking what happens the refused claim against my policy if that eventuality happens.

As said before - your insurance will definitely cover damage to other vehicle.
They have no way to refuse to pay it.

I can't tell you if they'll pay to you for your own damage, as this would depend on your insurance policy wording.

clint_silver

CiniO wrote: »

As said before - your insurance will definitely cover damage to other vehicle.
They have no way to refuse to pay it.

I can't tell you if they'll pay to you for your own damage, as this would depend on your insurance policy wording.

No damage to my own. Just changed the wheel.

Sue Pa Key Pa

It's not an Act of God. You presented a hazard to the public and an incident ensued. None of it intentional, but they are the facts. The 3rd party has a valid claim against you. I think you are confusing this with being able to claim for your own tyres, following a blowout, which is a standard exclusion

clint_silver

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

It's not an Act of God. You presented a hazard to the public and an incident ensued. None of it intentional, but they are the facts. The 3rd party has a valid claim against you. I think you are confusing this with being able to claim for your own tyres, following a blowout, which is a standard exclusion

No, not confusing it with that.

My main question here isnt about whether Im liable, only my insurance company will answer that in the fullness of time if I ending up claiming off them.

I'll try ask the question in another way then, forget about the incident here, if any claim is registered against my policy for whatever reason, and that claim is turned down by my insurer, does my policy have a claim against it and does that affect my premiums going forward?

Yawns

If they refuse to payout in what your thinking, then afaik, then no they won't have a claim against you. I understood what you wanted to ask in the OP btw, didn't need to rephraze it. People often get hung up on the reality of the situation rather than what you want answered.

They are right tho, the other party has a valid claim in this case which you know. Hopefully, it's a small amount to repair and you can both keep insurance companies out of it.

CiniO

clint_silver wrote: »

No, not confusing it with that.

My main question here isnt about whether Im liable, only my insurance company will answer that in the fullness of time if I ending up claiming off them.

I'll try ask the question in another way then, forget about the incident here, if any claim is registered against my policy for whatever reason, and that claim is turned down by my insurer, does my policy have a claim against it and does that affect my premiums going forward?

The only reason insurance company can turn down someone's claim against your policy, is in case where you were not liable for their loss (f.e. you didn't cause their loss so their claim was groundless).
In such case, of course it's not going to affect your no claims bonus.

But in case you described, you are liable, as part of your car came off and caused damage to someone else.
So your insurer will pay to other party, and reduce your NCB/increase your premium, etc...

Yawns

CiniO put it better in his answer than I did. If you cause no loss/damage to third party, then your insurance can refuse to pay out so won't affect you NCB.

Sam Kade

clint_silver wrote: »

Driving last week, had a blow out, tyre flew off, I pulled over, car behind me pulled in front of me said the tyre hit front of his car and caused some damage. It was dark at the time and lashing rain, hard to see.

There's a good few posts online about this, that unless negligence can be proved that the blow out is to all intents and purposes an act of god and if goes to insurance then the company will say theyre not covering it.

Hes going to get an estimate and out of a of good will gesture if its up as far as a couple hundred Ill cover it but any more and Im going to say go to the insurance.

Question is do the insurance company register that as a claim against you that affect your policy even if they turn down the claim?

And if the company say no, is there any small claims that can be taken against me?

Were the Gardaí called? What did they say?

Yawns

Gardaí don't need to be called unless someone is injured. They also don't say anything as they cannot determine who is at fault. Only need Gardaí if injury occurs or offence commited such as drink driving etc then someone will call.

CiniO

Yawns wrote: »

Gardaí don't need to be called unless someone is injured. They also don't say anything as they cannot determine who is at fault. Only need Gardaí if injury occurs or offence commited such as drink driving etc then someone will call.

That's a very interesting bit.

After over 10 years living in Ireland I still can't understand why gardai can't determine who is at fault.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CiniO wrote: »

That's a very interesting bit.

After over 10 years living in Ireland I still can't understand why gardai can't determine who is at fault.

Because a) they didn't witness the event and b) they are not qualified to do so

CiniO

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Because a) they didn't witness the event and b) they are not qualified to do so

That's probably true, but I still fail to understand why are they not qualified to do so - they should be.

Anyway - at the moment in that kind of accidents, it's insurance companies who determine blame/fault for the accidents.
And that's even more ridiculous as
a) they also didn't witness those accidents.
b) I'm not sure how qualified they are to do so.
c) They are private businesses which business is to pay as little for claims as possible, and therefore they might try to assign blame in line with lower payouts, even if such assignment is not correct.

I actually wonder how it works in other countries.
I only have experience from Poland, where insurers are not involved in associating blame for accident whatsoever.
As they are private businesses, they are only there to pay for the claims.
In case of small accidents (no one injured) it's either drivers themselves signing a statement between themselves if they agree who is to blame, or they call a police, who then come to the spot, interview drivers, looks for damage on vehicles and other possible traces of accident (like tyre marks, broken glass or plastic location, etc) and assign who is to blame for accident.
IMO that's a much better system than the one in Ireland.

Cordell

IMO that's a much better system than the one in Ireland.

It is not. I'm coming from a country that has a similar system, the cops decide if the drivers can't agree. So the cops will choose the easiest solution, that is to place the full blame on the driver that broke the law, or on the one that broke the law the most. And this leads to a dangerous driving culture, in which the drivers think that all of their responsibility is not to break the low, an no more. Driving with due care? Nobody has time for that as long as you don't break the law. Most accidents happen because one driver breaks the law and the other drives without due care.

That being said, the guards have no technical qualification nor authority to judge a civil liability matter. If there is a need for forensic investigation it will happen, but this is not the case for most accidents.

Sam Kade

Yawns wrote: »

Gardaí don't need to be called unless someone is injured. They also don't say anything as they cannot determine who is at fault. Only need Gardaí if injury occurs or offence commited such as drink driving etc then someone will call.

The Gardaí have always been called to accidents whether there's injurys or not.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CiniO wrote: »

Anyway - at the moment in that kind of accidents, it's insurance companies who determine blame/fault for the accidents.
And that's even more ridiculous as
a) they also didn't witness those accidents.
b) I'm not sure how qualified they are to do so.
c) They are private businesses which business is to pay as little for claims as possible, and therefore they might try to assign blame in line with lower payouts, even if such assignment is not correct.
.

a) True
b) If they are not qualified to make a decision on a certain aspect of law, they engage suitable qualified personnel to do it for them
c) Minimising the payout to a 3rd party is known as defending the rights of you, their policyholder. The less they pay is to your benefit.I'm presuming you accept that the average motorist is also not best qualified to undertake this themselves

I would rather take my chances on a complicated liability case with my insurer looking to refute a 3rd party claim or minimise the loss, than have it rest with a Garda who just wants it off his desk

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sam Kade wrote: »

The Gardaí have always been called to accidents whether there's injurys or not.

If they are busy, they will not attend a damage only accident

Yawns

Sam Kade wrote: »

The Gardaí have always been called to accidents whether there's injurys or not.

They can always be called but won't always attend. They usually do but don't have to. If they are busy, you will be asked if someone is injured. If the anwers is no, you'll be asked if both parties have swapped insurance details without difficutly.

I was a passenger in a car once that recieved a slight tip on the wing. So light that only a scratch, not even a crumple or dint in the wing. Both drivers stopped in the middle of the junction waiting for a guard for 20 mins and caused a massive fecking delay for everyone.

Soon as the gaurd arrived and realised with 20 secs that noone was hurt and how light the incident was, he was ready to pop. Told them to stop acting the maggot blocking the road and to move the cars right now.

So while they guards do attend most of the scenes of accidents, they don't actually have to be called for every little incident. If the drivers are able to asssess the scene correctly and handle it themselves, no is injured and no road debris that would cause issue for anyone else, then no need for guards.

CiniO

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

c) Minimising the payout to a 3rd party is known as defending the rights of you, their policyholder. The less they pay is to your benefit.I'm presuming you accept that the average motorist is also not best qualified to undertake this themselves

I meant something else actually.
F.e. Car A and Car B crash.
Fault is rather on driver A side, but it's not 100% clear.
Assume both cars were insured with the same insurer, both third party, fire & theft (no comprehensive cover).

Let's assume driver B is injured and his car worth €4000 written off, while driver A is perfectly fine, and while his car (worth €500) also written off.

So now the insurer has two options

They can say that driver A was at fault, and they'll have to pay from his policy compensation for driver B injures and €4000 for his car. That might end up in tens of thousands which they'd need to pay.

However if they say that driver B was at fault, then all they have to pay will be compensation from driver B's policy for damage to car A of value of €500.


And here's what I mean - what is stopping insurer to assign fault to driver B in that case, even if in reality it should be driver A at fault?
Simply by assigning fault like that, they are saving tens of thousands of €€€.

I would rather take my chances on a complicated liability case with my insurer looking to refute a 3rd party claim or minimise the loss, than have it rest with a Garda who just wants it off his desk

Insurer obviously still should be able to assess the value of the claim.
I'm not saying that Garda should say that injured party should receive €5000 for vehicle damage and €20000 for personal injury.
I'm saying that Garda should be able to say who was at fault.
Insurer should be in their right to assess the amount of damage.

That's how it works there in Poland.
And what I didn't mention, Policeman is assigning this fault on the spot.
Any of the participants of the collision can refuse to agree with Policeman's decision, and in that case it will go to court.
Straight and simple.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CiniO wrote: »

Any of the participants of the collision can refuse to agree with Policeman's decision, and in that case it will go to court.
Straight and simple.

That is exactly why it wouldn't work in Ireland. It would be court every time

clint_silver

If driver who has damage to car gets quote for repair can you insist a different quote is sought or is he entitled to get it fixed wherever he wants?

Sue Pa Key Pa

clint_silver wrote: »

If driver who has damage to car gets quote for repair can you insist a different quote is sought or is he entitled to get it fixed wherever he wants?

The wronged person is entitled to get his vehicle repaired wherever he wants. The cost must be reasonable. Once the parts & labour are verified, that's the end of it

Yawns

His car, his choice where to get it repaired. As long as it's reasonable, it's fine. Bear in mind the same job done for an insurance company usually gets charged much much more. So a €200 job for you or me, becomes a €600 job when it's an insurance company paying.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Yawns wrote:

His car, his choice where to get it repaired. As long as it's reasonable, it's fine. Bear in mind the same job done for an insurance company usually gets charged much much more. So a €200 job for you or me, becomes a €600 job when it's an insurance company paying.

Nonsense. Parts, Labour, Sundries etc are always verified by insurers

Yawns

Yeah nonsense....

I've had repairs done on my cars before and I was asked who was paying me or insurance. The €200 job became €600 for the insurance company. Perhaps it's just a once off tho and noone else has ever encountered the likes before. What do you think?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Yawns wrote:

I've had repairs done on my cars before and I was asked who was paying me or insurance. The €200 job became €600 for the insurance company. Perhaps it's just a once off tho and noone else has ever encountered the likes before. What do you think?

Well, you're dealing with fraud there. Most likely at Revenues expense by quoting €200 for cash, whereas the insurance price had to be invoiced and include VAT

NUTLEY BOY

My 10 cents worth.

The mere fact that a tyre blew out is not evidence of negligence or breach of duty. The car driving behind has to prove fault.

Against that, it might be argued that a tyre blowing out raises a presumption of some vehicular defect and the principle of res ipsa loquitor might be argued. This would require the defendant to rebut a presumption of liability if the rule is invoked or allowed by a judge if this went to court. Whether the rule operates or not depends very much on the evidence. BTW, res ipsa is a rule of evidence not a heading of liability.

If OP wants to settle the matter himself so be it. However, he should get his insurer's authority to do so first and that does mean reporting the accident. To negotiate directly and or to fail to notify the accident to insurers are both breaches of standard policy conditions. OP should also be satisfied that the damage claimed to the other motorist was actually caused by the tyre and that he is not dealing with a slick opportunist.

In relation to Gardaí the position is that they are investigators and gatherers of evidence. They have no legal authority to make determinations of liability in civil matters - that is a function of the courts.

clint_silver

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

My 10 cents worth.

The mere fact that a tyre blew out is not evidence of negligence or breach of duty. The car driving behind has to prove fault.

Against that, it might be argued that a tyre blowing out raises a presumption of some vehicular defect and the principle of res ipsa loquitor might be argued. This would require the defendant to rebut a presumption of liability if the rule is invoked or allowed by a judge if this went to court. Whether the rule operates or not depends very much on the evidence. BTW, res ipsa is a rule of evidence not a heading of liability.

If OP wants to settle the matter himself so be it. However, he should get his insurer's authority to do so first and that does mean reporting the accident. To negotiate directly and or to fail to notify the accident to insurers are both breaches of standard policy conditions. OP should also be satisfied that the damage claimed to the other motorist was actually caused by the tyre and that he is not dealing with a slick opportunist.

In relation to Gardaí the position is that they are investigators and gatherers of evidence. They have no legal authority to make determinations of liability in civil matters - that is a function of the courts.

Insurance broker was notified and thats sufficient (according to the broker)

Other party told me just under 1000e as a cash job. Double that if insurance.

Ive been told by broker I could end up paying 1500-2000 more in no claims loss over next few years which doesnt include any standard rate increase and obviously Id find it difficult to move if they did as most insurers wont touch me if I had a claim so it could cost me more.

It was very dark and wet on an unlit motorway, the tyre blew, came off the wheel, he was behind me, how far I dont know, I pulled over immediately, he pulled in front of me and told me that the tyre hit him. Seems like a good guy. Would have had to concoct the story in seconds. Hard to doubt it.

Henry Ford III

You always point out how wonderful everything is in Poland CiniO. If it was that good what are you doing in Mayo?

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You always point out how wonderful everything is in Poland CiniO. If it was that good what are you doing in Mayo?

I can tell you exactly why I'm in Mayo.

- because it's such a nice place to be comparing to most of Poland.
- because economic situation where work gives you decent wages and quality of life, while in Poland it doesn't.
- because of all nice people who live around and create great and harmonious society respecting all the members which is also not really the case in Poland.
- because of extremely nice scenery, crystal clear air and water, and all the unpolluted mountains and hills around, which we're lacking in Poland.
- because of very low level of crime and no need to worry about being a victim of criminals, which also is not that good in Poland.
- and because of low population density, which gives people lot's of living space, comparing to overcrowded Poland.
- and obviously because of good tap Guinness available nearly on every corner.


But I certainly can tell you, that I'm didn't move to Mayo, because of all the poor motoring laws, crazy high motortax, insane situation with motor insurance and general situation with motoring, which I consider to be in much better shape in Poland.
Also I'm definitely not here in Mayo due to the lovely weather we get which consists of mostly rain, storms and wind....

But no place can be perfect, and good aspects of living in Mayo surpass the bad things big time.

Cordell

Have you ever considered that the socio-economic reality in Mayo is better off than the one in Poland exactly because some laws are different? Including those "poor motoring laws" that makes Ireland one of the safest country when it comes to road accidents?

A fellow non-Polish-Eastern-European

CiniO

Cordell wrote: »

Have you ever considered that the socio-economic reality in Mayo is better off than the one in Poland exactly because some laws are different?

Not really.

Like what:
- people are not nice to each other because of any laws
- population density is not lower because of any laws.
- nice clean environment, clean air and water are not there because of any laws.
- low crime also hasn't much to do with any laws, but rather better standard of living.
- and economic situation - surely some wise corporate, business and work laws helped here, but it's not as simple as that.

Including those "poor motoring laws" that makes Ireland one of the safest country when it comes to road accidents?

Irish roads statistically are safe indeed.
But statistics are usually very deceptive unless you really look through.

Quick comparision:
Irish Population 4.6 million.
Road deaths in 2015: 166
That is 3.6 fatalities per 100,000 citizens.
Very good result.

Comparing to Poland:
Polish population: 38 million
Road deaths in 2015: 2904
That is 7.64 fatalities per 100,000 citizens.

Over twice worse than Ireland.

But let's look at Mayo itself.
Population: 130,000
Road deaths in 2015: 13
That is 10 fatalities per 100,000 citizens.

The worst of all the three.

So while in Ireland statistically I'm over twice less likely to be killed on the road then when driving through all Poland, but when I drive mostly in Mayo, I'm worse off statistically than in Poland.

I also don't think any motoring law has much to do with it.
It's a fact that there's no transit traffic (large volume of artic trucks) in Ireland, while there is plenty in Poland going through the country very often through local roads and towns due to lack of proper motorway network.
Also fact that most Polish people drive old bangers which are way less safe than much never vehicle fleet Irish people drive. You'd be surprised how much to road safety simple things like ABS, airbags etc add, or ESP which is now fitted to every new car so becoming quite common in Ireland, while still rarity of Polish roads.
Same less amount of cyclists and pedestrians comparing to Poland helps road safety.

porsche boy

In relation to an act of God, which God was it? My God wouldn't do something like that but some of those other gods are right bastards.

Cordell

But let's look at Mayo itself.
Population: 130,000
Road deaths in 2015: 13
That is 10 fatalities per 100,000 citizens.

How may Mayo residents among those 13? Also, 130k is the figure from 2011, so you need to use the road deaths figure from that year If you need to split hairs, might just as well do it right.

amcalester

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Well, you're dealing with fraud there. Most likely at Revenues expense by quoting €200 for cash, whereas the insurance price had to be invoiced and include VAT

Not necessarily fraud, a business is allowed to have different prices for different customers. It's based purely on what that customer is willing to pay.

Sue Pa Key Pa

amcalester wrote: »

Not necessarily fraud, a business is allowed to have different prices for different customers. It's based purely on what that customer is willing to pay.

The reality is fraud and tax evasion.

CiniO

Cordell wrote: »

How may Mayo residents among those 13? Also, 130k is the figure from 2011, so you need to use the road deaths figure from that year If you need to split hairs, might just as well do it right.

I have no clue how many Mayo residents among that 13? What difference does it make?

130k figure is probably indeed from 2011. Do you think it changed much since? I doubt it.

I used 2015 road death figures as they are the most recent, so giving the best picture to current situation.
Data from 6 years ago is less relevant.
Going that way I could use data from 1976 or something which would be even less relevant.
Using the newest data makes most sense.

Cordell

When you report it to the number of county residents, it does. What does not make sense is to compare county Mayo with a country which is 4x bigger than Ireland - I'm sure there are counties in Poland that are more unsafe than county Mayo (and some more that are safer, maybe).
But I think I'll drop from this conversation, which is both pointless and offtopic. Cheers.