Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Insurance Payout

Options
  • 28-02-2008 2:02pm
    #1
    biddyryan75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭


    My boyfriend and i were in a crash there was not NCT or no Tax on the car the tax was out 2 weeks. Will the insurance company pay out we think both cars are a right off thankfully nobody was hurt. Please help,


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭Barr


    If it can be proven it was unsafe eg bald tyres then there could be some contributary negliegence ,

    It would all depend on if a defect (which could have been picked up by NCT)contributed to the accident

    In the most cases these are very hard to prove and generally have little effect on the outcome of claim.

    Tax has nothing to do with the insurance company


  • Options
    #3
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    You haven't said which car was at fault and if you have comprehensive insurance cover.
    If you are at fault and you only have basic third party (with or without fire & theft) cover then you will not get anything.
    If you have basic cover and the other driver was at fault then you will get paid.
    If you have fully comp then you will get paid regardless of blame.

    If you are at fault you will also have to pay the excess.

    The lack of an NCT could as already said, have an impact on blame.

    Anyhow, a driver recently pulled out of a side lane and stopped in front of me - no dispute on liability. About two weeks ago the claim was initiated with the insurance company. Assessor saw it yesterday and has approved payment!


  • Options
    #4
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,357 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Regardless of what you do wrong, example..., no nct, bald tyres etc, the insurance have to honour payment to the other party. They can dispute your part of the claim though. so if crash was your fault and you write off someone elses 100K car, they will always pay for the other car.


  • Options
    #5
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Thats true mickdw, but if the other driver was at fault then their insurance company can use lack of NCT as a reason for not paying out as much, if at all.


  • Options
    #6
    John R
    Registered Users Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭John R


    kbannon wrote: »
    Thats true mickdw, but if the other driver was at fault then their insurance company can use lack of NCT as a reason for not paying out as much, if at all.

    They can try it for sure although lack of NCT in itself means nothing. If they didn't pay and you disputed it all the way to the courts they would have to prove that the claimant was responsible/partially responsible because of a defect.

    They will use lack of NCT as a bargaining tool to limit their payout knowing that most people will not challenge them all the way to the courts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    biddyryan75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭biddyryan75


    kbannon wrote: »
    You haven't said which car was at fault and if you have comprehensive insurance cover.
    If you are at fault and you only have basic third party (with or without fire & theft) cover then you will not get anything.
    If you have basic cover and the other driver was at fault then you will get paid.
    If you have fully comp then you will get paid regardless of blame.

    If you are at fault you will also have to pay the excess.

    The lack of an NCT could as already said, have an impact on blame.

    Anyhow, a driver recently pulled out of a side lane and stopped in front of me - no dispute on liability. About two weeks ago the claim was initiated with the insurance company. Assessor saw it yesterday and has approved payment!


    Thank you for your replys we were at fault he was speeding and we did not see him coming so we turned right we still crossed his path. We have fully comperhansive cover so im hoping they will pay.


  • Options
    #8
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Was it your car that didn't have NCT ? If you didn't have NCT when it was needed the insurance company could go as far as only paying the claim against you and even trying to recover that money from you. If they did they would be perfectly within their right to do so because when you sign up to a policy you also undertake to keep the car roadworthy while using it on a public road covered by an insurance policy. If this was on the continent prosecution for no NCT ( or equivalent ) and as a consequence no insurance ( insurance co's take their hands of you the moment they know your car hasn't passed inspection ) would follow as sure as day follows night.


  • Options
    #9
    biddyryan75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭biddyryan75


    Yes it was our car that had no NCT. Oh my god this is not looking good?


  • Options
    #10
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    The potential situation I sketched above is very much the extreme end of possibilities, the chances that they're going to be that harsh are fairly limited.
    I wouldn't be too worried just yet. Was there anyone injured in the crash and has the fraternity of the blue flashlight been involved ?


  • Options
    #11
    biddyryan75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭biddyryan75


    No nobody was injured thank god i dont understand what you mean about a blue flashlight?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,506 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    biddyryan75 wrote: »
    Tax on the car the tax was out 2 weeks.

    Is not having the vechile taxed not a perfect excuse for the insurance company not to pay? After all the car was illegally on the road without tax:confused:


  • Options
    #13
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,711 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Your insurer should pay out I'd imagine for any 3rd party damage. Not too sure about your own damage.

    Your NCB could be gone however.


  • Options
    #14
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    meathstevie wrote: »
    ....when you sign up to a policy you also undertake to keep the car roadworthy while using it on a public road...

    You're correct in saying that however, a NCT is not a certificate of roadworthiness. Read the cert, it says so.
    It would be up to the assesor to determine (through an engineers report) that the accident was caused due to a defect in the car which rendered it unroadworthy.

    As this seems to be a clear cut case of driver error, there shouldn't be a problem.
    If the Guards decide to prosecute a dangerous or careless driving charge, it may affect the insurance as most policies have in the fine print that you must drive in a responsible manner.

    Keep us posted on the outcome.


  • Options
    #15
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,506 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    stevec wrote: »
    a NCT is not a certificate of roadworthiness. Read the cert, it says so.
    .

    What is the point of the NCT so? Sorry OT but I thought the entire point of the NCT was to confirm road worthiness?


  • Options
    #16
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    What is the point of the NCT so? Sorry OT but I thought the entire point of the NCT was to confirm road worthiness?
    I thought that as well, believe me - read the cert it's on there.


  • Options
    #17
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭Barr


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Is not having the vechile taxed not a perfect excuse for the insurance company not to pay? After all the car was illegally on the road without tax:confused:

    Insurance companies are'nt interested whether cars are taxed or not , its nothing to do with a claim and sorting out liability.


  • Options
    #18
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    What is the point of the NCT so? Sorry OT but I thought the entire point of the NCT was to confirm road worthiness?

    It can only say that there wasnt a fault with any of their checks on the day of the test. They cant (like any test in the world) guarentee your car wont develope a fault in the 2 years till he next test. Sure you could hit a kerb and damage the suspention that could eventually fail while you still have a valid NCT.


Advertisement