Car insurance advice desperately neededp

[JMT]

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?

[flocker spotter]

you claim through your insurer and they claim off his- as long as he caused the damage, it should not matter. let your insurer chase it up and make sure you get all receipts etc for out of pocket expenses

[rendelharris]

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.

[JMT]

Thanks. We are only covered for third party, fire and theft.

[rendelharris]

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!

[Loz]

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?

[rendelharris]

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]

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

[Loz]

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".