You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I have a mate who has only been driving cars about 2 years. His insurance is very high but he went for fully comprehensive.
A couple of months back he was approaching a roundabout, the left hand lane being reserved for buses etc until just before the roundabout, where people turning left then had to move over to the left lane when the bus lane terminated. Unfortunatly an 18 year old driver had decided to ignore the bus lane restrictions and just drive up it. My mate moved to the left lane and the 18 year old driver ran into the side of his car.
The insurance companies have deemed it to be the fault of my mate as he should have taken more care looking to see if anything was coming up the lane. However, despite his being fully comp his insurance are now refusing to pay out any repairs whatsoever to his vehicle, saying they will only pay for the 18 year olds car repairs.
Is this normal with fully comprehensive?
If so, there is no benefit to having it and 3rd Fire and Theft is surely the better option as it costs less and does the same? He was not told there was no 'own car' cover at the time of purchase. He has not checked the small print yet.
Did he admit that it was his fault?
I think he told them what he told me, he pulled into the new lane and was someone coming up it. His front wing by the tyre is crushed in. I think the front of the 18 year olds wing was damaged.
Does it make much of a difference? I thought the whole point of fully comp was to cover yourself too? I think he is paying over £1000 per year.
How much was his excess?
Did he admit that it was his fault?
Why should that matter? If I get fully comprehensive insurance it's also to cover me being a muppet and reversing into an underground carpark column, not just collisions with other cars. Otherwise I'd just get 3rd party F&T.
Does it make much of a difference was not meant to sound rude, it was just a straight question. I read it back and though it might sound rude.
Sounds like the damage is within the Excess.
If your mate has only been driving for 2 years then there's a good chance he has a high excess hence why he'll have had to pay?
Ah the excess is a good point - I do not know. I will ask him. He is on very low pay so this accident (entire wheel had to be replaced cira £400 so far)is a big financial blow to him. Its sad really as he is a very conciousness driver and I am surprised this happened.
as he is a very conciousness driver
Apart from not checking his mirrors before changing lane.
Does it make much of a difference was not meant to sound rude, it was just a straight question. I read it back and though it might sound rude.
I didn't take it as rude, just as a question 🙂
Hopefully he'll take a bit more care next time he changes lanes. 🙂
Fully comp should cover his own vehicle.
He should also not accept the fault being his citing the illegal manoeuvre of the other driver. He needs to dig his heels in quite frankly.
It would only be negligent on his behalf if he didn't check and hit a bus! I would argue that point that I was aware of my surroundings and knew there wasn't a bus in the bus lane.
This is all assuming that the bus lane is either all the time or it was within the restricted hours. If it was outside of the restricted hours then its classed as a normal lane in which its your mates fault.
Either way at fully comp I'd be expecting my car to be repaired
The excess is not relevant , the accident will be treated as one claim ,he will have to pay the first part of the claim to fix the other vehicle anyway so his as well shouldn't cost him any more. So if he has £400 excess and the claim is £1000 he will pay the first £400 , if the claim is £5000 he will still only have to pay the first £4000 . Are you really sure he doesn't just have third party insurance ?
I would argue that point that I was aware of my surroundings and knew there wasn't a bus in the bus lane.
Not seeing a car doesn't make you very aware of your surroundings.
[s]As others have said it could be to do with the excess.[/s]
Scrap that Ramsey has a very good point as it's one big claim.
What is this high excess meant? ..fully comp is a fully comp regardless right?
What is this high excess meant? ..fully comp is a fully comp regardless right?
The first 200 (or whatever) he has to pay, the rest is paid by the insurance.
Assuming he's a young driver, to get his premium down to something like £1k, he'll probably have such a high compulsory excess that it won't be worth him claiming for the damage to his own.
My son's insurance is like that. Excess so high that it will be unlikely he'll want to claim on his own insurance, making it "Fully Comp" in name only but "Third Party" in practical terms.
Well as I said, I was surprised it happened as he is generally very concieincous and also takes great care about speed limits etc, thats why its sad - its an abberation. He really is not a careless or casual driver. I suspect being fairly new, he was mostly looking for tall buses. Also I dont know at what point the other car pulled out from down the queue - if they were only a few cars back it could have been after he looked.
I am not making excuses for him - fair dues if he got it wrong, we all make mistakes. He is very very upset about having an accident and I dont mean about just the financial stuff. He is a caring bloke. He is worried about the other driver (mentally, they were not physically injured in any way).
I am just surprised fully comp does not mean fully comp. Am thinking I need to look much harder at terms when I renew my own insurance as I dont want to be caught like this too if something goes wrong.
Either way at fully comp I'd be expecting my car to be repaired
Exactly. Unless he can be shown to be committing an offense such as DUI it should be covered.
Lucky there wasn't a cyclist or bus coming up that lane..
Either way, fully comp should not be judging his driving ability
Is it in his interest to claim though? If he has only been driving a while a claim [i]could[/i] end up costing him more than paying for the damage (assuming the other driver is happy to settle without involving insurance
No he is not a young driver himself, he is in his late 40's. He lives in a city so passed his test in later life.
You don't have a Third Party Excess (or very rarely) so if he had no damage to his vehicle he would not pay anything should the Third party claim.
If the damage is less than his Excess then as above, the insurers would just tell him to repair himself.
Lucy there wasn't a cyclist or bus coming up that lane..
Who's Lucy?
The trouble with the 'bus in a bus lane' is that in this area you also get taxis, motorbikes etc in bus lanes legally.
All the other cars were queuing to move into the bus lane, so it must still have been in the 'this is a bus lane' time period I think. The 18 year old admitted to him at the accident they had pulled into the bus lane before they should have. No witness to this statement though.
He showed me his insurance cover note - it definitly had fully comp written on it cos I checked.
I did not see any terms and conditions though. He did not have any with him when he showed me.
Who's Lucy?
[img] 
[/img]
I just looked through the email he sent to me last time. He says the insurance company refused to pay out on his car, only the 18 year olds car
"because they [the insurance company] said the accident was my fault, so my car was not covered".
he was mostly looking for tall buses
[img] 
[/img]
"because they [the insurance company] said the accident was my fault, so my car was not covered".
Well. Something is not right here.
Any idea what he should do next if he wants to question the insurance companies position?
If he 100% has fully comprehensive cover, he wants to ring them and ask/demand why he is not covered.
Ring them up and ask them.
I dont know of any UK fully comp policies without accidental damage so it is unlikely to be due to fault.
Insurance is just a contract with terms you can read.
Lucky there wasn't a cyclist or bus coming up that lane..
This.
Not come across this before. What insurer/policy? A quick scan of the policy booklet will show what's what.
I will try to find out more about what is happening. He has spoken to the insurance at least twice and been turned down both times.
Sounds weird to me, I had a crash last year. I wrote off my car and two parked cars, totally my fault, insurance took care of everything. Paid for my car in full, all of their claims and, happy happy joy joy, protected no claims! I did have to pay a £50 excess which stung a bit. Fully comp is there to cover your losses irrespective of fault, although I expect if you are driving illegally there are clauses to get them out of paying.
@midnighthour something is wrong, fully comp pays out no matter who is at fault. If your friend has little money he should start claiming that the lack of a vehicle which he cannot afford to repair is impacting his ability to earn money and he'll pursue the insurance company for that too.
On the illegal manoeuvre that might be hard to win the argument, the 18 yr old may have been in the bus lane illegally but at the point of impact I imagine he and your friend were in the non-bus-lane bit.
The 18 year old admitted to him at the accident they had pulled into the bus lane before they should have. No witness to this statement though.
Doesn't matter he clearly didn't check or he'd seen the car in the bus lane.
If he's not happy he can call the Citizen's advice or Insurance Ombudsman, I can't see why they shouldn't pay out. I've never had that not even when my Ex drove flat bang into a brick wall.
My insurance paid out for damage to my car (well actually they paid me what my car had been worth 🙁 ) when I ran into the back of somebody because I wasn't paying proper attention, and when I rolled my car onto a police car. That's what comp insurance does. Either your "mate" is telling you porkies, or he's not actually got the policy he thinks he has.
Where did the other driver come from?
If he was directly behind the OP's mate, I can see how an inexperienced driver might be caught out if he checks the lane, sees that it's clear, the teenager behind decides to jump the gun on the lanes by swinging left and booting it, then matey starts his manoeuvre into the lane that [i]was[/i] clear a couple of seconds ago.
Not saying that's what happened of course, but something like that would be a lot less cut and dried than if he'd changed lanes without looking and clipped someone who'd been driving along there for the last five minutes.
Regardless; fully comp should pay out regardless of fault, less the excess. For a small amount of damage it's possible, likely even, that the repairs would cost less than the insurance excess. That would explain why perhaps they're not paying out; they are, just that there's nothing to pay.
The other thing it might be, of course, is a specific clause in the policy which states that although it's comprehensive insurance they specifically won't pay out for own-fault accident repairs. I've never come across that before, but who only knows what he's agreed to in order to reduce his premiums. He needs to check the policy documents. You know, the big envelope he threw away when he took out the policy.
........... sorry did someone say something?
Jennifer Lawrence is very lovely isn't she 😳
They should definitely be paying out (minus any excess).
He may have got confused however, excess is only deducted when you are at fault. i.e. They may have said "because you were at fault, we've deducted the 750 quid excess, and since the cost of repair is 600 quid, you have to pay it".
From the 18 year old's point of view, ALL costs will be covered as its coming off your mates insurance.
(It was also 100% your friends fault, though the guy in the bus lane needs to be fined).