Dodgy insurance claim

Cobyoshi

Hi I wanted some advice. I was in a minor accident recently in my mothers car (the insurance says I am insured to drive as I am over 25). I rear ended a car. It happened just before a round about. The accident was minor(15 km). No injuries very minor damage guards came and I admited liability. He said he wouldn't go through insurance and I agreed to pay for the car repairs (a bumper and boot ).He went to the garage a half hour later and we got a price to fix it. He said he wouldn't be claiming or anything.We arranged with the garage and him to bring the car back when parts were in and get it all sorted. Low and behold a week later a solicitors letter. A personal injury claim etc etc. Me and my mother went in to the insurance company and they said she had bonus protector and that I was covered under her policy. This was two weeks ago. Today I got a letter from the insurance company saying i wasn't insured and that insurance bureau of Ireland is taking over???? Iam wondering what is going on when it clearly states on my mum insurance I was insured and in the insurance office the same. I produced my licence and insurance in the Garda station. I have no insurance policy myself. I am very worried about this as it will basically ruin my life.As well the personal injury thing seems dodgey.Especially the way it all changed. I have my statment to the insurance company. They felt it needed investigation.

Liam McPoyle

Do you have a full licence?

The insurer may be trying to get away from the claim if you have a learner permit and were driving unaccompanied.

If you are named on the policy or if your mam has open drive and you are covered under the insurers terms for open drive then I don't k ow what the issue is.

Something is not adding up.

Cobyoshi

Rod Munch wrote: »

Do you have a full licence?

The insurer may be trying to get away from the claim if you have a learner permit and were driving unaccompanied.

If you are named on the policy or if your mam has open drive and you are covered under the insurers terms for open drive then I don't k ow what the issue is.

Something is not adding up.

Thanks for the response

I am not a named driver and I have a full licence. Something is not adding up and suspect the insurers are trying to get out of it in some way. It very bizzare and not logical.

Sono

Does your mother have open drive on her policy for a certain age bracket and do you fall into this? If not and you are not a named driver then you are not insured to drive that car.

Cobyoshi

Sono wrote: »

Does your mother have open drive on her policy for a certain age bracket and do you fall into this? If not and you are not a named driver then you are not insured to drive that car.

It says anyone over 25 with a full license
I am 33 and have a full clean license.

Sono

Cobyoshi wrote: »

It says anyone over 25 with a full license
I am 33 and have a full clean license.

If it says this and your licence is valid and there is nothing else you haven't told us here then your insurance company has made a mistake.

Is there anything we are missing here?

phormium

I can drive my Dad's car because I am over 25 and my daughter can drive my car because she is over 25 but we are both driving while covered by our own policies. When she is driving my car it is her own policy that is covering and not mine. Same when I drive my Dads, it's my policy/insurer that is on the hook if something goes wrong and not his. If I had no insurance policy of my own I could not drive my Dads car unless he added me as a named driver or had paid for open driving.

Are you misunderstanding the over 25 bit of her policy?

Sono

If you have your own policy and have driving of other cars and are fault driving someone else's car then the claim follows the driver but if you don't have a policy of your own and are covered to drive under open drive then you should be covered, I just don't get it....

Cobyoshi

Sono wrote: »

If it says this and your licence is valid and there is nothing else you haven't told us here then your insurance company has made a mistake.

Is there anything we are missing here?

They give no reason they just say their investigation shows I wasn't insured? Am I best to get my own solicitor. I am considering documenting this on camera.As it maybe of use to some people. How can they state I am insured in the office and then suddenly say I am not???

Sono

You need to read your mothers policy conditions, I would be amazed if they are saying you're not covered when in fact you are.

Very premature to get a solicitor to be honest but up to you.

Cows Go µ

Cobyoshi wrote: »

It says anyone over 25 with a full license
I am 33 and have a full clean license.

It says that on the cert? I don't get how they could be saying you weren't insured then.

Get your mum to call and ask what their reasoning is because that doesn't make sense

Cobyoshi

Cobyoshi wrote: »

They give no reason they just say their investigation shows I wasn't insured? Am I best to get my own solicitor. I am considering documenting this on camera.As it maybe of use to some people. How can they state I am insured in the office and then suddenly say I am not???

I went in to the insurance office with my mother and they stated I was covered under her policy.

Sono

Cobyoshi wrote: »

I went in to the insurance office with my mother and they stated I was covered under her policy.

Now this doesn't make any sense, have you read the policy booklet with the conditions like I said above? I don't know why they would say you were covered then realise you're not.

Did you only check cover after the event? Just curious about this part cos it's pretty careless if you omly checked cover after an accident.

Cobyoshi

I am going to go back in to the office on Monday and see what's going on. I wonder what the implications are if for some reason I am not insured but I can't see why I wouldn't be especially when they told me when I went in the first time that I was covered.

Sono

Your mother surely has her policy conditions at home in paper or in digital format, you could find out sooner than Monday surely.

Cows Go µ

Cobyoshi wrote: »

I am going to go back in to the office on Monday and see what's going on. I wonder what the implications are if for some reason I am not insured but I can't see why I wouldn't be especially when they told me when I went in the first time that I was covered.

The problem with going in and asking is that you have no proof of what was said. If something is done over the phone at least there is a call recording or even better having it in writing by either letter or email.

In the meantime, you really should get out the cert and policy booklet so you can point out exactly where it says you are covered

Cobyoshi

Sono wrote: »

Your mother surely has her policy conditions at home in paper or in digital format, you could find out sooner than Monday surely.

She's away at the moment. And I new I was insured but wanted to make sure 100% as insurance companies are tricky at the best of times.

Sono

All I would say is unless you have it in writing over verbally over the phone as the cow mentioned above what you were told in their shop does not stand up in court.

Was it a broker you went into by any chance?

Yawns

Is it possible for you to be insured on the mother's policy only if you have your own insurance policy on another car? Again, what you need to do is get the mother's policy and go through it with a fine tooth comb. Which insurance company is it?

Cobyoshi

It starts with an a and ends with an a three letters

Wexy86

Who's name is the car registered in?
Do you or your mother have any previous claims/convictions that were not disclosed? A-A are very tight on their underwriting.

Is it definitely open Drive and you aren't mixing up with driving of other cars?

Also if they have declined the claim they need you give you a reason so it should have been advised when you/your mother was told.

jimmycrackcorm

Cobyoshi wrote:

It says anyone over 25 with a full license I am 33 and have a full clean license.

The policy document may state a condition that the driver is covered if they already have their own insurance. It should list the conditions that cover so that should be the first port of call.

Cobyoshi

Wexy86 wrote: »

Who's name is the car registered in?
Do you or your mother have any previous claims/convictions that were not disclosed? A-A are very tight on their underwriting.

Is it definitely open Drive and you aren't mixing up with driving of other cars?

Also if they have declined the claim they need you give you a reason so it should have been advised when you/your mother was told.

They told us I was covered in the office. It states over 25 and full license and the car is in her name and she has no points clean license etc

Cobyoshi

Sono wrote: »

All I would say is unless you have it in writing over verbally over the phone as the cow mentioned above what you were told in their shop does not stand up in court.

Was it a broker you went into by any chance?

No it was their office. The phone calls are recorded.

cruizer101

Seems strange, according to their website (https://www.axa.ie/help/question/what-is-open-driving/) it is as you said anyone between 25-70 with full licence. I can't seem to get a copy of their policy booklet from the website, other insurers often have it, to check the full terms but seems strange alright. They do appear to have a my axa self service login which you might be able to log in to check the full details.

I'd be checking the terms and ringing on monday if not tomorrow asking them to explain why they think you are not covered.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Oddest scenario I've seen in a while. Insurers usually double check before they advise there is no indemnity, especially with an injury claim.

Cobyoshi

Thanks for your responses it's very bizzare. I 'll see if they are open tomorrow or call. It's just with my mother away they may not speak with means it her policy etc but we 'll see.

Cobyoshi

I also looked on their website seems very straight forward I couldn't download the online booklet or find it either.

Cows Go µ

You can get the booklets here:

https://www.axa.ie/axa-insurance-downloads/

They would need to be read in conjunction with the schedule and cert though

MayBee

Could this have something to do with you admiting liability, isn't there a clause in most insurance policies whereby you are not to admit liability (even if you are blatantly in the wrong) I stand to be corrected on this.

Cobyoshi

MayBee wrote: »

Could this have something to do with you admiting liability, isn't there a clause in most insurance policies whereby you are not to admit liability (even if you are blatantly in the wrong) I stand to be corrected on this.

This is what I am afraid of by admiring liability does it make the insurance null and void for some reason.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Is there any way of scanning the section on the cert where it says Drivers or Class of Driver whose driving is covered

Sue Pa Key Pa

Cobyoshi wrote:

This is what I am afraid of by admiring liability does it make the insurance null and void for some reason.

No. Admitting liability at the scene is non admissible. Not ideal, but that's not a valid reason. Negotiating or continuing to admit liability after the event is a problem though

Cobyoshi

I will scan it,As he agreed to get just get the car repaired and he then changed his mind.It could be the agreement made and that null and voids It. It very messy his car had failed the nct on tires and was going for inspection that day. It's a total nightmare very worried over it. They are not open tomorrow either and I would sooner go in to the office. It will have to be Monday.

CiniO

As Sue Pa Key Pa is saying - no really any need to look into insurance policy documents, etc...

All the info about who is covered to drive is on this single page of insurance cert.

Special Circumstances

I'd say there's no winning here kobayashi.

Canis Lupus

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I'd say there's no winning here kobayashi.

Not sure if Star Trekking or serious comment

Liam McPoyle

Another thing.

Your mam has a valid policy of insurance so even if you were not covered to drive the car the MIBI would simply instruct here insurer to handle the claim as insurer concerned.

As someone said above, there has to be something you are missing here as they could not deny liability of everything is as you have said it is.

Marcusm

Cobyoshi wrote: »

It says anyone over 25 with a full license
I am 33 and have a full clean license.

Which company is it?

Liam McPoyle

Just re reading the op again.

You didn't inform the insurer about the incident until after ye received the solicitor letter, is that correct?

They could be attempting to void the policy for non notification of the incident.

I've been banging this drum for years, if you are involved in any incident or accident that could give rise to a claim you are obliged by the terms of business to notify the insurer.

Never trust anyone when they say they won't be making an injury claim.

People turn into bastards when they think they will get a pay out.

You might get lucky and get a decent, honest person but threads like this are cropping up more and more often so it proves that the majority of the public are scumbags when it comes to insurance claims.

Special Circumstances

Rod Munch wrote: »

Just re reading the op again.

You didn't inform the insurer about the incident until after ye received the solicitor letter, is that correct?

They could be attempting to void the policy for non notification of the incident.

I've been banging this drum for years, if you are involved in any incident or accident that could give rise to a claim you are obliged by the terms of business to notify the insurer.

Never trust anyone when they say they won't be making an injury claim.

People turn into bastards when they think they will get a pay out.

You might get lucky and get a decent, honest person but threads like this are cropping up more and more often so it proves that the majority of the public are scumbags when it comes to insurance claims.

I've been asking you as long as you have been saying it... where does one draw the line?

You've said "ANY" "potential" claim.
Then you said not car park dings and doorbangs.


Where is the line?



I'm also dubious as to whether this get out attempt would stand up to a legal challenge if there was no obvious attempt to defraud or mislead the insurer.... it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a minor incident won't lead to a claim.

RGS

The op needs to read his mother's policy carefully. Open driving does could with restrictions. Each policy is different.
The insurers must set out in writing the reasons for refusing indemnity and the insured is entitled to appeal the decision and request the fsob to investigate.
All these discussions must be conducted by the policyholder (op mother) unless she gives written consent to the op to handle the matter.
If may be that he did not have his own policy which is nullifying the mothers policy.

mrsbeebee

They wouldn't have declined cover for admitting lability or late notification. Even if they did they wouldn't be involving the mibi as they would have to deal with he claim themselves. It could be that you have confused open drive with driving other cars cover. If your mum has open drive you should be covered. If there was a belief that you had your own policy and were driving under your doc extension and you turned out not to have a policy in your own name you would not be covered.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Best of luck OP, I'm leaving the forum for now. If there is anything specific about any of my posts that you want clarification on, send me a PM

Special Circumstances

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Not sure if Star Trekking or serious comment

I think the Klingons took out a few posters here alright. Few questions left hanging...

NUTLEY BOY

Cobyoshi wrote: »

They give no reason they just say their investigation shows I wasn't insured? Am I best to get my own solicitor. I am considering documenting this on camera.As it maybe of use to some people. How can they state I am insured in the office and then suddenly say I am not???

This is utterly insufferable conduct by the insurers.

Repudiating indemnity under a motor insurance policy is a serious step. Insurers cannot simply bin off a client by saying that their investigations show that you were not insured. If they are going to avoid the contract - which is what they are doing - they must explain themselves.

Failure to explain the basis of a purported repudiation of the contract is highly unprofessional and shabby beyond words. They must be told by the policyholder that she insists on receiving a proper explanation from them in writing.

You can always complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau once you have got a final response from the insurer. Link https://www.financialombudsman.ie/about-us/

In relation to the broader issues that might arise I can only endorse the conventional wisdom already expressed in the thread. If you are involved in an accident ;

1. NEVER agree to any friendly arrangements to settle the matter privately. They often turn sour, as happened here.

2. You MUST report the accident to your insurers. Where it is possible that the accident might incur a liability for the insurers there will be both contractual and statutory obligations to report it.

3. You must NEVER enter in to negotiations with any other party without the prior consent or agreement of the insurers.

lanciadub

Do you have your own insurance policy on another car ? if not i dont see how you would be covered to drive someone elses car if your not a named driver on their policy.
To drive someone elses car usually requires the age requirements (which you meet), A full clean licence (which you have) but it usually means you are using your own policy to drive that car not the car owners policy .

oppenheimer1

lanciadub wrote: »

Do you have your own insurance policy on another car ? if not i dont see how you would be covered to drive someone elses car if your not a named driver on their policy.
To drive someone elses car usually requires the age requirements (which you meet), A full clean licence (which you have) but it usually means you are using your own policy to drive that car not the car owners policy .

He has said he was driving on his mother's open drive policy.

That generally means that the car can be driven by any person over 25 with a clean Irish license, whether or not they have their own insurance on another car

lanciadub

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

He has said he was driving on his mother's open drive policy.

That generally means that the car can be driven by any person over 25 with a clean Irish license, whether or not they have their own insurance on another car

he says "It says anyone over 25 with a full license" somewhere in the policy.
He doesnt actually say in any posts that his mother has an open drive policy. This might be the cause of confusion. I hope it turns out ok for him though.

JIdontknow

OP, do you have your own insurance policy on a different vehicle?

I could be, and more than likely am wrong but open drive on a policy I personally thought applied to that persons driving of other cars, so in this case the op's mother having open drive would mean that the mother can drive other cars, not that other drivers can drive the mothers car (Without being insured on it directly \ named driver)?

I may be wrong but my understanding was you can only "open drive" other cars once you have your own valid insurance, as well as meeting the other criteria (over 25 etc). I.E Open drive applies to that individual driving other cars, not others driving their car. I am open to correction though.

CiniO

JIdontknow wrote: »

OP, do you have your own insurance policy on a different vehicle?

I could be, and more than likely am wrong but open drive on a policy I personally thought applied to that persons driving of other cars, so in this case the op's mother having open drive would mean that the mother can drive other cars, not that other drivers can drive the mothers car (Without being insured on it directly \ named driver)?

I may be wrong but my understanding was you can only "open drive" other cars once you have your own valid insurance, as well as meeting the other criteria (over 25 etc). I.E Open drive applies to that individual driving other cars, not others driving their car. I am open to correction though.

What you're describing is third party extension which most insurers offer to some of their customers which allows policy holder to be covered thrid party (and sometimes even comprehensive) when driving other cars (which policy holder doesn't own).

Open drive policy is different thing, and it's a policy which allows anyone to drive the car insured under that policy.
It's rare in Ireland, usually expensive, and often very limited (f.e. to driver only 25-70 years age, etc).
Similar policies are generally standard elsewhere in the EU, without such limitations.