Help, someone else was driving my car and had an accident, am I liable?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Help, someone else was driving my car and had an accident, am I liable?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339608 17-Oct-2019 09:58

Yogi02:

What do you expect would happen if your driving an uninsured car, you swerve to avoid an accident. Go up the curb, through a fence and crash into someones house taking out a corner of the house/building. The house becomes uninhabitable and you are liable for your car, fence, house repairs and additional costs?

Its not as far fetched as you might think and accidents are often more than just a small nose to tail on the motorway.

I would expect the driver to be found liable, have no assets and go bankrupt as is their right to.

Richard rich.ms

deadlyllama

1263 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2339611 17-Oct-2019 10:00

sen8or:

If someone cant afford even 3rd party insurance, then yep, they shouldn't be on the road.

And if they live in a small town and are on a very low income ... what else are they supposed to do for transport? Poverty exists in places without public transport!

Even the cheapest third party policy I've had, came with $3,000 cover for me if I was in an accident with another car and the other driver was uninsured. I'm sure they'd still go after the other driver to recover the money. Likewise, if someone drives into your house, well, your house policy will cover it and chase down the driver.

Being uninsured is a risk to the person is uninsured. But it's not a risk to people who are insured.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339633 17-Oct-2019 10:27

Personally I think you'd have to be crazy to drive a completely uninsured car, and even more crazy to lend it to somebody else.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339650 17-Oct-2019 10:30

sen8or:

tehgerbil:

Yogi02:

I still find it very hard to believe that insurance (at least 3rd party) is not compulsory.

So owning a vehicle becomes more expensive, more out of reach for poorer people and insurance companies can screw over a captive audience? Yeah. Going to pass on that one.

If someone cant afford even 3rd party insurance, then yep, they shouldn't be on the road.

I agree though with insurance companies and the captive audience. Would take strong regulation by Govt, comcom to ensure that the 3rd party element wasn't excessive and that just opens up a whole can of worms.

I have to totally agree with this - it's a simply fact of life that owning a vehicle comes with some direct costs - maintenance, insurance and WOF/registration - simply if people can't afford to keep their car legal and to insure it (or pay for damage that they may cause) then they can't really afford to own a car at all... It isn't a right...

Mattmannz

471 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339655 17-Oct-2019 10:37

As previously mentioned on here Insurance companies will say all sorts of things to try and directly recover costs from any party involved to reduce their costs. Often these approaches won't have any legal requirement or obligation.

As the owner the only thing you are required to do is provide your details to the police and information to your insurance company if you are insured and nothing more beyond that. You do not have to supply any information to the other parties insurance company and you do not need to correspond with them at all.

If they wish to take things further, unless it is a criminal matter which is very unlikely then they will need to go via a civil case in court which is unlikely if the cost is less than 10k.

I was involved in a car crash a few years ago in an uninsured vehicle I owned (only one of 3 not insured) and the insurance company was very aggressive in trying to recover their costs from me. I covered the other parties rental car costs and insurance excess directly so they were not out of pocket and advised their insurance company to not contact me.

Ignore them and refuse to engage would be my advice.

duckDecoy

898 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#2339665 17-Oct-2019 10:55

Mattmannz:

I was involved in a car crash a few years ago in an uninsured vehicle I owned (only one of 3 not insured) and the insurance company was very aggressive in trying to recover their costs from me. I covered the other parties rental car costs and insurance excess directly so they were not out of pocket and advised their insurance company to not contact me.

I am a bit confused by this, maybe I have misunderstood. Were you uninsured, the cause of the accident, and didn't think you should pay their insurance company the cost of the repairs? Have I understood correctly?

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2339678 17-Oct-2019 11:20

Surely the insurance company would just expect more the excesses to be paid for the other cars?

They would want you to pay for the damage to the other cars if they thought you liable so will still chase you despite paying the other people's excesses..

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Mattmannz

471 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339682 17-Oct-2019 11:32

duckDecoy:

Mattmannz:

I was involved in a car crash a few years ago in an uninsured vehicle I owned (only one of 3 not insured) and the insurance company was very aggressive in trying to recover their costs from me. I covered the other parties rental car costs and insurance excess directly so they were not out of pocket and advised their insurance company to not contact me.

I am a bit confused by this, maybe I have misunderstood. Were you uninsured, the cause of the accident, and didn't think you should pay their insurance company the cost of the repairs? Have I understood correctly?

It was a complex situation but yes the vehicle I was driving was not insured and I was involved in the accident.

I think the point that people are missing is that you have no direct obligation with the other parties insurance provider. The other parties insurance company cannot settle the case with their client without involving you and then come and seek costs from you. If I had had insurance the two companies would have talked directly before any settlement was made and agreed the value and where liability lies.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339684 17-Oct-2019 11:43

When people put their claim in, they are making their insurance company act for them in settling it. You at that point have no further dealing with the person themselves and if they do contact you to abuse you etc then that is harassment.

Richard rich.ms

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339685 17-Oct-2019 11:45

richms:

When people put their claim in, they are making their insurance company act for them in settling it. You at that point have no further dealing with the person themselves and if they do contact you to abuse you etc then that is harassment.

Exactly this!

Whatsmore - as an insured vehicle owner, I see that I pay them to take care of this for me - I don't want to deal with it.

zyo

513 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339689 17-Oct-2019 11:56

Mattmannz:
duckDecoy:

Mattmannz:

I was involved in a car crash a few years ago in an uninsured vehicle I owned (only one of 3 not insured) and the insurance company was very aggressive in trying to recover their costs from me. I covered the other parties rental car costs and insurance excess directly so they were not out of pocket and advised their insurance company to not contact me.

I am a bit confused by this, maybe I have misunderstood. Were you uninsured, the cause of the accident, and didn't think you should pay their insurance company the cost of the repairs? Have I understood correctly?

It was a complex situation but yes the vehicle I was driving was not insured and I was involved in the accident.

I think the point that people are missing is that you have no direct obligation with the other parties insurance provider. The other parties insurance company cannot settle the case with their client without involving you and then come and seek costs from you. If I had had insurance the two companies would have talked directly before any settlement was made and agreed the value and where liability lies.

I guess what you are trying to say is
by agreeing to pay the other parties insurance company it would be an admission of fault. And you are under no obligation to do that as the insurance company isn't directly involved in the accident?

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339707 17-Oct-2019 12:37

zyo:
I guess what you are trying to say is by agreeing to pay the other parties insurance company it would be an admission of fault. And you are under no obligation to do that as the insurance company isn't directly involved in the accident?

I think what he is trying to say is that you do not have to engage with the insurance company if you don't want to (which is incorrect), but if he has already settled the claim and paid the other party, he can refuse to engage with them (which would be silly as they'd simply file proceedings if they wanted and you'd then have to prove you'd already settled). It would IMO be easier to simply show the insurer proof that this has occurred and they'd likely go away...

nitro

657 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2339826 17-Oct-2019 14:55

Mattmannz:

It was a complex situation but yes the vehicle I was driving was not insured and I was involved in the accident.

I think the point that people are missing is that you have no direct obligation with the other parties insurance provider. The other parties insurance company cannot settle the case with their client without involving you and then come and seek costs from you. If I had had insurance the two companies would have talked directly before any settlement was made and agreed the value and where liability lies.

sure. their insurance company should be talking to your insurance company. your insurance company would then deal with you as they see fit - increase your premiums, etc.

i think the point that you are missing is that you are uninsured (for this vehicle), which leaves their insurance company with only you to deal with. IF (and that's not explicitly stated, even though you agreed to cover their excess) you are liable for the accident, you are liable not just for the other party's insurance excess.

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2339852 17-Oct-2019 15:32

I have been in the same situation except I was the driver of the uninsured car (I never got caught out like that again, and I suspect you won't either).

Do not ignore the letter. Do not listen to people telling you to ignore it - it is terrible and ignorant advice. New Flash: Problems and bills don't go away by ignoring them.

You have received a stock standard letter. The other insurance company simple wants to know who to negotiate with (ie who send the bills to should everyone agree that the other party was not at fault and who to send the money to should everyone agree the opposite) - be that you, your insurance company (if you were insured), the driver of your car or your rich daddy who bails you out of trouble if you are lucky enough to have one of those.

As earlier stated, you need to write back explaining who the driver was and that the insurance company should talk to them (do not say that the driver is "liable" for costs, but simply state who was responsible for and driving the vehicle at the time of the crash).

If no one talks to them next step for the insurance company is to take it to court and with no better information the claim will be lodged against the registered owner. If you fail to show up in court you will be found guilty by default. Ignoring the letter is irresponsible and ignoring your duty to not only yourself but as a citizen and is a guaranteed way to have bailiffs turn up on your door step. You will end up paying unnecessary court costs, bailiffs fees and interest when your friend should have manned up and simply paid for their mistake in the first place. The insurance company doesn't want to go to court, they simply want to work out a deal that is just.

Legally the driver is responsible for losses that they cause. It is not the owners fault it was crashed, it is the drivers fault. The at-fault driver is responsible for losses to BOTH cars, so from a legal standpoint, you of all people should not be left out of pocket.

Igor the earlier obfuscation about WOF's etc. The physical act of speeding, driving with no WOF or crashing is what is illegal. It is not illegal to own a car that has no WOF, that can speed or that can crash.

Grunta47

94 posts

Master Geek

#2339869 17-Oct-2019 16:20

An interesting topic and similar to an issue I had many years ago.

Long story short, I sold a car, it had an accident, the other parties Insurance company came chasing me.

The car was sold to a family friend for his son. Change of ownership had been completed and everything was as per normal. However, the dad had worked on the car for roughly 6 months as a project and the Rego had lapsed. Son gets the new car, does not register and then boom.

The insurance company chased me for about a year with perhaps a phone call every couple of months. I gave them all of the new owners details but they still kept on coming back to me, as their view was that I owned the car so my problem.

The problem was finally resolved when I spoke to a senior manager who looked into it and found the agent was looking at the Registration papers (mine was the last one before the accident) and not the ownership papers. Case closed.

Their view all of the way through was that both the driver and owner of the car were responsible until they got what they wanted.

Best of luck with this one:-)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4