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