Public liability

funk-meister

I made a wrong call, misjudging a car that i thought was indicating right....it didnt and hit me. My road bike was written off, I ended up in hospital though discharged the same day.

The car driver is now claiming for the damage that i caused to his 4x4, complete with bull bars, to the tune of £1400.

Where do I stand? Can i persued through the courts? I am wondering whether my house contents policy covers public liability.

Appreciate thoughts.

RufusA

Most house contents insurance policies WILL cover public liability for all those who are normally resident in the house. So chances are they would cover this accident.

If you want to go this route, then check your policy wording, and speak to your insurer ASAP.

If the cause / fault in the accident isn't clear cut then it may be worth discussing it with a specialist. RJW are often recommended, and are used by the CTC so are well used to cyclists:

http://www.rjw.co.uk/

I believe they will take a case on, on a no-win no-fee basis (subject to no-win indemnity insurance).

HTH - Rufus.

jeremyrundle

Put yourself in his position, if a cyclist caused damage to your car would you want the cyclist to "get away with it".

A sad fact but no, which is why the CTC membership at £35 per year offers free legal advice and FREE public liability insurance, a small price to pay for peace of mind.

Perhaps I am just over cautious but before I even took my first ride I considered all possibilities, bike insurance, public liability, lights, headcams front and rear, quality helmet.

There is an old saying, "no point in closing the barn door after the horse has bolted".

Anyway, remember what any good driving instructor would say, just because a car is indicating does not mean you should assume it is turning!

And surely the only one who would know if your house policy covers you is you :!:

There is an old expression "insurance is a con.... until you need it :twisted: "

snailracer

If it goes to civil court for award of damages, it is not a case of "guilty" or "not guilty". It is common for liability to be shared, say 70:30 or 50:50. If the motorist gave a confusing signal, he gets some of the blame (and his award gets reduced). Don't assume it is entirely your fault, RTCs rarely are.

Also know that, if the motorist/his solicitor takes you to court, it is up to THEM to prove it was your fault - not that easy - your stories may confilct, there may be no witnesses, the witness may not turn up, etc.

thelawnet

funk-meister wrote:

I made a wrong call, misjudging a car that i thought was indicating right....it didnt and hit me. My road bike was written off, I ended up in hospital though discharged the same day.

The car driver is now claiming for the damage that i caused to his 4x4, complete with bull bars, to the tune of £1400.

Where do I stand? Can i persued through the courts?

Of course, he can sue you if he wants.

Whether he will or not is another question.

* was it your fault? If so, you might decide to just pay his costs.
* if you decide not to pay, you can safely ignore any demands from him, short of actual legal action.
* if he does take you to court, he will need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you were to blame for the accident. There shouldn't be any legal costs for you to pay.

fossyant

Hence why to get CTC or BC cover. Wing mirrors aren't cheap - looking at £400 for electric/heated/painted ones.

Go check your home policy. If it is your fault, the driver has every right to claim off you.

nwallace

What exactly is he claiming for?

A lot of modern panels are plastic or fibreglass and those that aren't such as doors are often double skinned; this means traditional panel beaters don't have much work to do as the panels aren't beatable and the only option is a replacement.

Now, when it comes to plastic bodyshells, if you ever by a Vauxhall VXR thingy, don't dare bump it on anything. The tooling cost for creating a new one means that even a scratch results in a write off.

Clank

nwallace wrote:

What exactly is he claiming for?

A lot of modern panels are plastic or fibreglass and those that aren't such as doors are often double skinned; this means traditional panel beaters don't have much work to do as the panels aren't beatable and the only option is a replacement.

Now, when it comes to plastic bodyshells, if you ever by a Vauxhall VXR thingy, don't dare bump it on anything. The tooling cost for creating a new one means that even a scratch results in a write off.

Painting? Possibley a new bonnet - there's plenty that *could* have been damaged dependent on the accident itself. The guy of course, could just be taking the piss, but don't discount the thin nature of metal on the front skin on most cars.

Closures aren't double skinned, either. Single skin, between 0.5mm and 0.9mm thick (from Tata Nanos up to Silver Ghosts).

nwallace

Odd, a mates mondeo needed a new door as it was twin skinned and unbeatable and was told that's normal now.

Clank

nwallace wrote:

Odd, a mates mondeo needed a new door as it was twin skinned and unbeatable and was told that's normal now.

It certainly isn't normal. Doors, bonnets etc are a speciality of work, and we're pretty familier with most closures produced in Europe (especailly them that have been laser welded). They're a lot less interesting than you'd think!

Your friends Mondeo door could be unbeatable because of either the thin nature of the outer skin and the sharpness of the ding, or the laziness of the beater. But it's only got the single skin.

Either way, it sounds like your friend was misinformed, sadly.

Anyhoo, sorry to wend off topic!

beverick

RufusA wrote:

Most house contents insurance policies WILL cover public liability for all those who are normally resident in the house. So chances are they would cover this accident.

Agreed, but you do need to be aware of exclusions and policy T&Cs. For example, you may not be covered if you are taking part in an organised event, travelling on company business or if the claimant proves you were either negligent or broke the law. I dare say there may also be semantics involved such as not having declared a high value bike (ie outside of general policy covers) and then crashing it into something!

Similarly, there may be a definition of 'permanently resident' or even a punitive excess.

Regards

Bob

tarquin_foxglove

jeremyrundle wrote:

...before I even took my first ride I considered all possibilities, bike insurance, public liability, lights, headcams front and rear, quality helmet

hstiles

Several years ago, my car was damaged by a cyclist. He slipped on a manhole cover/grill and the bike flew out from under his feet and smashed into the front of my car, damaging the bumper and a side panel.

I got his details and tried to pursue it through my insurance company but they simply did nothing because of the hassle of going after someone outside of the insurance system and in the end was effectively told that my guaranteed no claims had covered me, so to forget incident and move on.

If your home policy has accidental damage cover and inckudes the bike, you shouldm in theory, be covered. It is a grey area though.

jeremyrundle

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

...before I even took my first ride I considered all possibilities, bike insurance, public liability, lights, headcams front and rear, quality helmet

No just someone with more forethought and insight than someone who says the above..

And we are all entitled to our opinions, at least I will never have to worry about an insurance claim :twisted:

spen666

beverick wrote:

RufusA wrote:

Most house contents insurance policies WILL cover public liability for all those who are normally resident in the house. So chances are they would cover this accident.

Agreed, but you do need to be aware of exclusions and policy T&Cs. For example, you may not be covered if you are taking part in an organised event, travelling on company business or if the claimant proves you were either negligent or broke the law. I dare say there may also be semantics involved such as not having declared a high value bike (ie outside of general policy covers) and then crashing it into something!

Similarly, there may be a definition of 'permanently resident' or even a punitive excess.

Regards

Bob

This seems to be nonsensical.

If there is no negligence, there is no liability. So effectively this is not insurance at all if they can refuse to cover where there is a claim

nation

hstiles wrote:

I got his details and tried to pursue it through my insurance company but they simply did nothing because of the hassle of going after someone outside of the insurance system and in the end was effectively told that my guaranteed no claims had covered me, so to forget incident and move on.

If the cyclist didn't have any liability insurance, depending on how much the insurance company was looking at recovering it very possibly wasn't worth the expense of:

-determining whether the cyclist actually had enough money/assets to meet the cost being claimed (there's no point paying solicitors to obtain, and then bailiffs to enforce, a judgement against someone who doesn't have any money). You usually need to use private investigators for this.

-Paying court fees, solicitors costs, and (possibly) counsel fees to obtain a judgement, then if the judgement is ignored, making an application to obtain information (that you can't obtain from private investigators) and/or to enforce the judgement.

-Paying bailiffs to enter the property and seize goods to the value of the judgement.

Some of these costs are, in principle, recoverable, and some aren't. It's usually better to make a decision about whether you're throwing good money after bad in pursuing it earlier rather than later. Insurance companies tend towards the former unless you're talking quite large amounts of money.

tarquin_foxglove

jeremyrundle wrote:

...before I even took my first ride I considered all possibilities, bike insurance, public liability, lights, headcams front and rear, quality helmet

No I understand now, after seeing this video of you & your dad on your first ride, you were taking perfectly sensible precautions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aZ83kJz2uc&t=1m11s

snailracer

nation wrote:

hstiles wrote:

I got his details and tried to pursue it through my insurance company but they simply did nothing because of the hassle of going after someone outside of the insurance system and in the end was effectively told that my guaranteed no claims had covered me, so to forget incident and move on.

If the cyclist didn't have any liability insurance, depending on how much the insurance company was looking at recovering it very possibly wasn't worth the expense of:

-determining whether the cyclist actually had enough money/assets to meet the cost being claimed (there's no point paying solicitors to obtain, and then bailiffs to enforce, a judgement against someone who doesn't have any money). You usually need to use private investigators for this.

-Paying court fees, solicitors costs, and (possibly) counsel fees to obtain a judgement, then if the judgement is ignored, making an application to obtain information (that you can't obtain from private investigators) and/or to enforce the judgement.

-Paying bailiffs to enter the property and seize goods to the value of the judgement.

Some of these costs are, in principle, recoverable, and some aren't. It's usually better to make a decision about whether you're throwing good money after bad in pursuing it earlier rather than later. Insurance companies tend towards the former unless you're talking quite large amounts of money.

You can add to your list the uncertainty of proving the cyclist was at fault to the court, especially if there were no other witnesses.

tomb353

I would notify your home insurer of the possibility of a claim and copy all letters to them, but don't tell the other guy that you are insured. In my experience it took a lot of time on the phone to find someone at the home insurance company who understood what I was talking about. I made the mistake of telling the other party that I was insured, but even then they still gave it up (I think, so far.....) as too much hassle to pursue a claim.

hstiles

snailracer wrote:

You can add to your list the uncertainty of proving the cyclist was at fault to the court, especially if there were no other witnesses.

In my case, he openly admitted liability at the scene of the accident., However, you would be possibly being naive to assume that he would still maintain liability once he'd gotten home, recovered his composure, thought about the likely financial implication and ascertained there were no witnesses.

nation

hstiles wrote:

snailracer wrote:

You can add to your list the uncertainty of proving the cyclist was at fault to the court, especially if there were no other witnesses.

In my case, he openly admitted liability at the scene of the accident., However, you would be possibly being naive to assume that he would still maintain liability once he'd gotten home, recovered his composure, thought about the likely financial implication and ascertained there were no witnesses.

It can be (and frequently is) claimed that the admission was made under duress or intimidation, or even just out of politeness (a lot of people do reflexively apologise when something unpleasant happens as a confrontation avoidance tactic).

Admissions of liability made at the scene pretty much never hold up.

EKE_38BPM

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

...before I even took my first ride I considered all possibilities, bike insurance, public liability, lights, headcams front and rear, quality helmet

No I understand now, after seeing this video of you & your dad on your first ride, you were taking perfectly sensible precautions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aZ83kJz2uc&t=1m11s

TF, I thought that was a serious video of JR and his dad, until I saw the helmet. WHERE WERE THE NUMEROUS HELMETCAMS AND AIRZOUNDS?

If its not too late, don't bother watching the video as it is obviously a fake.

Doesn't JR sound like a fun bloke?

snailracer

nation wrote:

hstiles wrote:

snailracer wrote:

You can add to your list the uncertainty of proving the cyclist was at fault to the court, especially if there were no other witnesses.

In my case, he openly admitted liability at the scene of the accident., However, you would be possibly being naive to assume that he would still maintain liability once he'd gotten home, recovered his composure, thought about the likely financial implication and ascertained there were no witnesses.

It can be (and frequently is) claimed that the admission was made under duress or intimidation, or even just out of politeness (a lot of people do reflexively apologise when something unpleasant happens as a confrontation avoidance tactic).

Admissions of liability made at the scene pretty much never hold up.

Also, a cyclist who has just crashed is likely to be quite shaken, concussed even, so whatever they may have said at the time should be treated with doubt.

beverick

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

RufusA wrote:

Most house contents insurance policies WILL cover public liability for all those who are normally resident in the house. So chances are they would cover this accident.

Agreed, but you do need to be aware of exclusions and policy T&Cs. For example, you may not be covered if you are taking part in an organised event, travelling on company business or if the claimant proves you were either negligent or broke the law. I dare say there may also be semantics involved such as not having declared a high value bike (ie outside of general policy covers) and then crashing it into something!

Similarly, there may be a definition of 'permanently resident' or even a punitive excess.

Regards

Bob

This seems to be nonsensical.

If there is no negligence, there is no liability. So effectively this is not insurance at all if they can refuse to cover where there is a claim

I may have been unlcear there so to confirm, where there is negligence on behalf of the insured there may be no, or more typically, will be reduced cover and hence payout.

Any insurer will only cover their insured for specific risks and in line with circumstances detailed in the policy and supporting schedules. The schedule will usually list what is covered and policy will list the circumstances where they will and will not provide cover. The exceptions usually include unlawful or, as relevant in this case, wilful acts. Wilful includes wreckless, deliberate and, in this case, negligent acts. nb these acts may or may not also be unlawful.

If you are negligent in some way, and the insurance can prove it, they can walk away from the claim either in full or in part.

It's why some of the insurance companies wrote to their customers in our area in 2009 saying that they would not cover the cost of items stolen from inside the house if the main door was left unlocked.

Bob