Dodgy insurance claim

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.

HeidiHeidi

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.

You're mixing up "driving other cars extension" (you driving other people's cars) and "open driving" ( other people driving your car).

Eta - dang, too slow, on phone!

JIdontknow

CiniO wrote: »

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.

Apologies you're correct.

Cobyoshi

Just an update. The insurance company gives no reason why it has found me not to be insured. The policy says anyone over the age of 25 and a full licence can drive the car third party.It states no need to add named drivers as this covers anyone over 25 to 70 with a full licence.I am not a named driver and i dont have my own policy. So it looks like paying for insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on if they can just back out from cover without giving reason. I am going to the solicitors tomorrow to see where this stands. Sky rocketing premiums and then insurance can just back out of cover. I actually may end up in jail at this rateas I can't afford to pay solicitors or the personal injury claim. I hit the car at 15 km an hour.

CiniO

Cobyoshi wrote: »

Just an update. The insurance company gives no reason why it has found me not to be insured. The policy says anyone over the age of 25 and a full licence can drive the car third party.It states no need to add named drivers as this covers anyone over 25 to 70 with a full licence.I am not a named driver and i dont have my own policy. So it looks like paying for insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on if they can just back out from cover without giving reason. I am going to the solicitors tomorrow to see where this stands. Sky rocketing premiums and then insurance can just back out of cover. I actually may end up in jail at this rateas I can't afford to pay solicitors or the personal injury claim. I hit the car at 15 km an hour.

Sounds really bizarre.

Would you be able to drop a quick photo or scan of section of the insurance cert which we asked before? (without any personal details, this is just section which says who is covered to drive.
(I'm asking this as you're saying that: "The policy says anyone over the age of 25 and a full licence can drive the car third party", but it's usually not the policy document which lists who can drive and is insured to drive, but your insurance cert.

Insurance cert, insurance schedule, and policy document should be read as single document to understand what is actually covered.

I know insurance companies are taking the p1ss in Ireland, but purely denying your cover if it was provided and you have it on paper, seems just quite unbelieveble.

pablo128

Cobyoshi wrote: »

Just an update. The insurance company gives no reason why it has found me not to be insured. The policy says anyone over the age of 25 and a full licence can drive the car third party.It states no need to add named drivers as this covers anyone over 25 to 70 with a full licence.I am not a named driver and i dont have my own policy. So it looks like paying for insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on if they can just back out from cover without giving reason. I am going to the solicitors tomorrow to see where this stands. Sky rocketing premiums and then insurance can just back out of cover. I actually may end up in jail at this rateas I can't afford to pay solicitors or the personal injury claim. I hit the car at 15 km an hour.

You need to get on to the insurance ombudsman.

Cobyoshi

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.

Hi yes the insurer wasn't notified untill we got the solicitor letter. So this could be the case.

Cobyoshi

RGS wrote: »

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.

On further studying my mother's policy today it clearly states I was insured to drive. I didn't need my own policy. Yes the insurers must give reasons for refusing indemnity. But they have not stated it not in any letter addressed to me or my mother. Just that the result of their investigation came toshow I wasn't insured and that they were passing it on to the insurance bureau of Ireland. Along with a letter for me to sign agreeing to take pay all costs to the bureau that they recieve.

Cobyoshi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

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.

Thank you for this statement.This will be looked in to.

DrPhilG

I had a similar issue a few years back. Reversed into another car in a car park, no speed and little damage.

She went from offering to settle without insurance for £500 of damage to her car, to sending me a solicitors letter (to my workplace) and ended up getting £1400 for the car and a 5k injury claim.

I also hadn't notified my insurance company as far as I recall. I only did so when she bogged her arm in with the BS claim. Had no issues with the insurance company. Other than how they are stiffing me on premiums since.

Cobyoshi

CiniO wrote: »

Sounds really bizarre.

Would you be able to drop a quick photo or scan of section of the insurance cert which we asked before? (without any personal details, this is just section which says who is covered to drive.
(I'm asking this as you're saying that: "The policy says anyone over the age of 25 and a full licence can drive the car third party", but it's usually not the policy document which lists who can drive and is insured to drive, but your insurance cert.

Insurance cert, insurance schedule, and policy document should be read as single document to understand what is actually covered.

I know insurance companies are taking the p1ss in Ireland, but purely denying your cover if it was provided and you have it on paper, seems just quite unbelieveble.

I 'll post the part of the insurance cert where it says it soon.