Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A red Mercedes S class smashed into our parked car a couple of weeks ago, causing ?1000's of damage. As we did not get a number plate, neither our insurance nor the MIB will investigate further. As it was a damage only accident, the police are not looking into it either.


Then last Thursday our car was hit again, causing a great deal more damage. This time we got the number plate and found, to our relief, that he was fully insured and admits all culpability. However, as he unfortunately had a stroke at the wheel causing the accident, the insurers say that he was not driving negligently, so they will not cover the damage.


Can this be so? Can anyone give us advice?

Unfortunately, and unfairly, I think the other party's insurers are within their rights, a stroke coming under "Act of God" and involving no negligence (unless the driver had a pre-existing condition which should have prevented him driving). A friend once had a lady who had an epileptic seizure crash through his garden wall: her insurers refused to pay as it was her first episode and so was in no way foreseeable or negligent. In that case the lady herself nobly stumped up for the repairs, but she was under no obligation to do so. I thought (could well be wrong) that insurers had an informal agreement to settle each other's claims in this sort of case...if you're fully comped your insurers will pay for repairs, but if I'm right and they can't get it back from the other party's insurer that'll be your no-claims gone for a burton and higher premiums on renewal.


As I said, it really doesn't seem fair but that's how I understand the position.

There are lawyers who will take on the MIB for the original damage on a no-win-no-fee basis - they take a hefty chunk (25%) if you win but still, 75% of your damages at no risk, worth a go? Good luck, feel for you.


ETA The MIB say on their website that they are there to compensate for untraceable culprits, so worth badgering - assume like most similar agencies their default response is to say no and see if you give up!

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A friend once had a lady who had an epileptic seizure crash through his garden wall:

> her insurers refused to pay as it was her first episode and so was in no way foreseeable or

> negligent. In that case the lady herself nobly stumped up for the repairs, but she was under no

> obligation to do so.


You may be right about the insurers liability, RH, but does that actually mean the driver themselves are not responsible for the damage? Might it be worth considering suing the driver?

Don't know about that, the insurer's stance would be that the driver is not at fault as there is no negligence on his/her part, if that applies to insurance one assumes it applies in any other related legal proceeding. Not at all sure though!

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/12/driver-heart-attack-wrote-off-my-parked-car-lost-no-claims


Well, that answers my question, but I have to say, it's definitely a case of "the law is an ass".

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...