I had no idea that if someone is taken ill whilst driving and causes a crash, it is likely that their insurance will not need to pay out....
www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/26/parked-car-hit-twice-insurers-wont-pay
Seems mad and typical of insurance companies.
|
|
Only insured TPFT. That's what comprehensive insurance is for.
|
|
A 56 plate car too. I know that is reaching banger territory, but even my old 02 plate pocket money heap is insured full comp. What little you save on premium with TPFT just isn't worth the potential hassle.
|
>> Only insured TPFT. That's what comprehensive insurance is for.
>>
And it's cheaper too in my experience. TPFT is only for people who are an accident risk. Usually fully comp is cheaper even for a worthless banger.
|
>> And it's cheaper too in my experience. TPFT is only for people who are an
>> accident risk. Usually fully comp is cheaper even for a worthless banger.
I wonder if the 'usually' bit applies if you park on street in Peckham?
|
Its obvious when you think about it. The third party element only covers your for your LEGAL LIABILITY. In most cases where you cause death or injury you will be held legally liable and the policy will pay out.
It follows that if there is no legal liability the insurance company does not need to compensate you
If you suddenly are taken ill or drop dead at the wheel you are probably not liable if the illness or death is so sudden that you didn't have time to do anything about it and could not predict that such illness or death might strike you.
In practice the courts are reluctant to find such a driver not liable and such cases are very rare.
|
Perhaps the Asian countries have got it right in this instance.
They seem to use the "if you weren't there the accident wouldn't have happened" principle.
|
>> Perhaps the Asian countries have got it right in this instance.
>>
>> They seem to use the "if you weren't there the accident wouldn't have happened" principle.
>>
Thats the principal the insurance companies use when they bump up your premium after a non fault accident.
|
What I call the 'common factor' principle.
You don't need a root cause analysis. We probably all know somebody who has had multiple accidents that weren't their fault, but which we suspect they might have avoided.
|
There's no loophole.
They are covering your legal liabilities not things you think it would be good for them to pay.
So, if your Doctor warned you not to drive but you did and you had an accident, you would probably be liable.
If you are, as far as you know or could reasonably know, quite healthy and you have a heart attack and crash then you probably will not be liable.
However, they will pay for the damage to your car if you have Accidental Damage (comprehensive) cover. Which might annoy the neighbour you hit quite a bit.
|
Insurance Loophole - Manatee
