How to deal with other party's insurance?

[vgcspares]

Having done a bit of claims work I'd suggest you follow all of the above advice, but if you want to cut to the chase (and the other guy's not being a dickh**d) - ask him for the name of his insurers and his claim number, then call them and they'll appoint an assessor to come and look at your bike (best if it's at a dealer so they can come up with parts prices etc). You'll have to fill out a declaration of non-insurance, so do it and get it back to them pronto as they won't do anything until they receive it.
If he is a twat (and lots of third parties are once they get away from the scene of the accident) then get a DT date and write him a letter - he'll pass it to his insurers and things should start happening.
Best of luck.

[Matt_TG]

Having done a bit of claims work I'd suggest you follow all of the above advice, but if you want to cut to the chase (and the other guy's not being a dickh**d) - ask him for the name of his insurers and his claim number, then call them and they'll appoint an assessor to come and look at your bike (best if it's at a dealer so they can come up with parts prices etc). You'll have to fill out a declaration of non-insurance, so do it and get it back to them pronto as they won't do anything until they receive it.
If he is a twat (and lots of third parties are once they get away from the scene of the accident) then get a DT date and write him a letter - he'll pass it to his insurers and things should start happening.
Best of luck.

Best advice so far. Go direct to the insurers.

You are what we call an UTP - Uninsured Third Party. Their assessor will look at your bike and agree with the repairers on the best course of action. If repairs are more than the bike's worth then they'll get two or three Pre Accident Valuations at their cost and settle to you on the average of those. If you disagree with the values you'll be asked to provide your own valuation from a reputable dealer at your cost.

Remember, the other guy's insurer is not bound to move things along promptly for you - you haven't paid for them to do that (if you had insurance then you'd expect your insurers to act quickly), and all they are legally obliged to do is to compensate you financially for the loss, so they don't have to repair it. You have no contract with the insurers but you can expect to be handled professionally.

If things go horribly wrong for you then the Disputes Tribunal is your next step but personally I wouldn't go in guns blazing at the outset with a DT form, see how you go first.

Insurers don't mind DT Hearings, they win some, lose some, so it's not a scary thing for them as the real facts come out and they only pay what they are legally obliged to rather than some things UTPs think they can claim (loss of use, time off work to handle the claim etc).

Good luck, let me know if you want some without prejudice advice.

Matt

[discotex]

Having an insurance company work on your behalf makes life so much easier. 3rd party cheap as and would be saving you the hassle.

Fingers crossed the police don't change their mind about who's at fault (or decide equal fault) when they write up their report.

[Slyer]

Yep, my bike isn't worth anything so I just got 3rd party, that way I can get a good history with insurances if I don't claim anything and if I manage to munt someones Mercedes they're there!
$72 a year!

[Jantar]

Some good advice on here, and also plenty of bad advice. The thing to remember is that you are your own insurer, and your dispute is with the other driver, not his insurance company. He has a contract with his insurance company, you don't.

So when you see things like "You'll have to fill out a declaration of non-insurance", you do not HAVE to at all. Insurance companies want you to, but there is no legal compulsion for you to do so. This is their way of keeping control. But you are in the right, the other driver is in the wrong, so you are the one in control, don't give that up.

You can simply take your bike to your preferred repairer, get a quote, and pass that quote on to the other driver. Attach a letter saying that unless you hear within 10 working days that he would prefer to replace your bike, you will instruct your repairer to commence repairs at the other drivers cost.

You can bet that he will take that to his insurance company, and they in turn will try and make you do everything by their rules. You do not have to obey their rules, as your dispute is not with them.

If you do go to the small claims court, make sure that the only other party mentioned is the other driver, not his insurance company. That way they are excluded from trying to make you follow their rules.

[Matt_TG]

I have thought about not replying to Jantar's post but the more I think about it I feel I should comment... Sorry Jantar, you probably mean well but I come across this situation nearly daily. It's the KB way of course to escalate things after all lol

Some good advice on here, and also plenty of bad advice. The thing to remember is that you are your own insurer, and your dispute is with the other driver, not his insurance company. He has a contract with his insurance company, you don't.

Yep, well said

So when you see things like "You'll have to fill out a declaration of non-insurance", you do not HAVE to at all. Insurance companies want you to, but there is no legal compulsion for you to do so. This is their way of keeping control. But you are in the right, the other driver is in the wrong, so you are the one in control, don't give that up.

There is a reason for a Declaration of Non Insurance. If you are insured you are expected to refer the matter to your insurer. One reason being that some insurers are part of an agreement that they sort their own shit out without chasing each other around the block for payment. It also establishes each party's rights for subrogation should there be an element of recovery. You do not have to sign it, for sure. But if you are not insured you have no reason not to sign it. If we get someone who refuses to sign one then we wonder why, it doesn't change any legal rights, simply states the person's uninsured status.

You can simply take your bike to your preferred repairer, get a quote, and pass that quote on to the other driver. Attach a letter saying that unless you hear within 10 working days that he would prefer to replace your bike, you will instruct your repairer to commence repairs at the other drivers cost.

You cannot instruct a repairer to do anything at someone else's cost without that other person's authority. Good luck in getting a repairer to carry out work on your say-so that the other party will pay. You can instruct at your cost though.

You can bet that he will take that to his insurance company, and they in turn will try and make you do everything by their rules. You do not have to obey their rules, as your dispute is not with them.

Ummm, your contract of insurance is not with them (well, you have no insurance contract at all, with anyone) but you do have a relationship with the other party's insurers - a legal relationship, that's a result of subrogation. This means that the other party's insurers avail themselves of all the rights and responsibilities of their client, so effectively you are dealing with them as if they were the driver that was at fault. The rules you obey then are the laws of the land, which are not the insurer's conditions.

If you do go to the small claims court, make sure that the only other party mentioned is the other driver, not his insurance company. That way they are excluded from trying to make you follow their rules.

Same as prior comment.


Or, just ignore this, go in guns blazing, demand the earth, be noisy and obstructive, make sure they know you are the boss and have a fun time

[Jantar]

.....You cannot instruct a repairer to do anything at someone else's cost without that other person's authority. Good luck in getting a repairer to carry out work on your say-so that the other party will pay. You can instruct at your cost though.

Absolutely true. However, not everyone knows that, and it is simply a catylist to make sure that things move quickly.

Ummm, your contract of insurance is not with them (well, you have no insurance contract at all, with anyone) but you do have a relationship with the other party's insurers - a legal relationship, that's a result of subrogation.

No, there is no legal relationship with the other party's insurers at all, unless you sign the Declaration of non Insurance. The subragation is a legal condition between the insured party and his insurer, but just like you cannot actually instruct the repairer to carry out the work at someone elses cost, nor can you enforce someone else to be party to a contract that they didn't sign. Again not everyone else knowws this, so the insurance companies are using that same tactic. Tell someone something and they might just believe it. Once someone signs the Declaration of Non Insurance, they become a party to that contract.

This means that the other party's insurers avail themselves of all the rights and responsibilities of their client, so effectively you are dealing with them as if they were the driver that was at fault. The rules you obey then are the laws of the land, which are not the insurer's conditions.

Except, that under contract law a party can not contract a thrid party to become part of that contract without the third party's agreement. If the injured party only deals with the driver (in this case), then when it reaches the court, the dispute is still between the driver and the victim. The insurance company can provide legal advice and representation, but will not be named as defendant or co-defenadant.

[Oscar]

Some good advice on here, and also plenty of bad advice. The thing to remember is that you are your own insurer, and your dispute is with the other driver, not his insurance company. He has a contract with his insurance company, you don't.

So when you see things like "You'll have to fill out a declaration of non-insurance", you do not HAVE to at all. Insurance companies want you to, but there is no legal compulsion for you to do so. This is their way of keeping control. But you are in the right, the other driver is in the wrong, so you are the one in control, don't give that up.

You can simply take your bike to your preferred repairer, get a quote, and pass that quote on to the other driver. Attach a letter saying that unless you hear within 10 working days that he would prefer to replace your bike, you will instruct your repairer to commence repairs at the other drivers cost.

You can bet that he will take that to his insurance company, and they in turn will try and make you do everything by their rules. You do not have to obey their rules, as your dispute is not with them.

If you do go to the small claims court, make sure that the only other party mentioned is the other driver, not his insurance company. That way they are excluded from trying to make you follow their rules.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.."

In a perfect world, the other driver would write a cheque on the spot, but let's get real here - riding without insurance is not particularly wise, and compounding that lack of wisdom with a confrontational attitude is just silly. Sure, you don't have to bend over backwards for the Insurer, but getting in their face (whilst satisfying in a small way), is likely to draw things out. Claims personnel are bad enough, but if you front up with that attitude, you'll likely get nowhere.


Your dispute is with the insurer. As soon as the other guy signs a claim form, he subrogates all his rights in the matter to his insurer.
In other words, from that point, you beef is with them.

As for the declaration of non-insurance, that it is not required by all insurers (only the ones in the "Knock for Knock" agreement), but do you seriously expect a company to pay out without some paperwork? Sign a form and stand a good chance you'll get paid, or be confrontational and draw out the fight?

I suggest you keep the attitude for impressing the gurlies, take the well trodden path and resort to the Small Claims Tribunal if the much simpler plan A don't work.

[Jantar]

Your dispute is with the insurer. As soon as the other guy signs a claim form, he subrogates all his rights in the matter to his insurer.
In other words, from that point, you beef is with them.

That sounds good in theory.... So if I'm ever involved in an accident where I'm in the wrong, and have to make a claim, does that mean that the cops will send the ticket to the insurance company? Not likely..... Yet by your description, the police's beef is now with the insuarnce company, not the driver.

[Matt_TG]

You are confusing civil wrong doing (tort) with criminal wrong doing.

The Police and Courts deal with the offence, the insurers and the individual deal with the redress/compensation as a result of the incident.

[Oscar]

That sounds good in theory.... So if I'm ever involved in an accident where I'm in the wrong, and have to make a claim, does that mean that the cops will send the ticket to the insurance company? Not likely..... Yet by your description, the police's beef is now with the insuarnce company, not the driver.

Yes, in a manner of speaking - the insurers can request that info from the Rozzers.

Notwithstanding that, I was talking about the civil matter of you v. the car driver, not the matter of the car driver and the cops (a seperate legal issue which may or may not provide evidence for your claim).

The contract exists between the insurer and the insured - the latter subrugates his rights to the former. In other words, you can hassle the driver all you like but is unable to respond.

As a former Insurance Company Branch Manager, I can tell you exactly what happens to people like you from my own experience.
I once heard an outraged citizen blustering and banging on about his "rights" to our receptionist. He was rude and loud (he woke me up in my office).

I wandered over and asked him how much premium he paid us. He said "none" and started up again about what we had to do for him. As I escorted him to the door, I explained to him that if he wasn't a customer, we didn't have to do anything for him, and he was welcome to piss off and get a lawyer.

If he'd have signed the declaration, his claim would have been settled within a week.

[Jantar]

....As a former Insurance Company Branch Manager, I can tell you exactly what happens to people like you from my own experience.
I once heard an outraged citizen blustering and banging on about his "rights" to our receptionist. He was rude and loud (he woke me up in my office).

I wandered over and asked him how much premium he paid us. He said "none" and started up again about what we had to do for him. As I escorted him to the door, I explained to him that if he wasn't a customer, we didn't have to do anything for him, and he was welcome to piss off and get a lawyer.

If he'd have signed the declaration, his claim would have been settled within a week.

But here is the difference. I am suggesting that an uninsured person doesn't have to deal with an insurance company at all. We are moving away from the origional posters dilemna here and heading into legalities, so I'll keep this hypothetical and treat it as though I have just had an accident where the other driver is in the wrong and the cops confirm that. I am unisured and the other driver is insured, (incidentally, I am always fully insured and I personally would let my insurance company handle everything).

We have exchanged information at the scene of the accident.

I will take my bike to my preffered repairer and ask for a quote. I would assume that the other driver will approach his insurance company

I will then send that quote and an estimate of my incidental costs (including replacement transport while the bike is off the road) to the driver of the other vehicle and attach a letter saying that I am dealling with him as the other party, and how he deals with his insurance company is up to him. I will not respond to any correspondance from his insurers other than through him. If there is no agreement within 10 working days I will instruct the repairer to commence repairs. If still no agreement when the repairs are completed, I shall pay for the work myself and sue the other driver in the District Court. The small claims court can hear disputes and make a judgement as to liability and costs, but cannot enforce it. So to save the hassle I'd go direct to the District Court.

Not once will I ever need to go into the insurance office, so will never have a chance to rant and rave in the manner you describe.

[Oscar]

But here is the difference. I am suggesting that an uninsured person doesn't have to deal with an insurance company at all. We are moving away from the origional posters dilemna here and heading into legalities, so I'll keep this hypothetical and treat it as though I have just had an accident where the other driver is in the wrong and the cops confirm that. I am unisured and the other driver is insured, (incidentally, I am always fully insured and I personally would let my insurance company handle everything).

We have exchanged information at the scene of the accident.

I will take my bike to my preffered repairer and ask for a quote. I would assume that the other driver will approach his insurance company

I will then send that quote and an estimate of my incidental costs (including replacement transport while the bike is off the road) to the driver of the other vehicle and attach a letter saying that I am dealling with him as the other party, and how he deals with his insurance company is up to him. I will not respond to any correspondance from his insurers other than through him. If there is no agreement within 10 working days I will instruct the repairer to commence repairs. If still no agreement when the repairs are completed, I shall pay for the work myself and sue the other driver in the District Court. The small claims court can hear disputes and make a judgement as to liability and costs, but cannot enforce it. So to save the hassle I'd go direct to the District Court.

Not once will I ever need to go into the insurance office, so will never have a chance to rant and rave in the manner you describe.

I have no doubt that that approach would work some of the time.
The major weakness in it is that it assumes that:

1. You are in the right.
2. The other guy is telling the truth.

You also run the risk of looking overly litigious in Court. Any insurer would turn up on behalf of their client and would severely weaken your case by tabling their standard letters seeking a settlement and yours stating that you refuse to deal with them.

It is great Plan B if things went south, however it just appears to be a helluva lot more work (and cost) than just fronting at the insurer and signing the form.

[Matt_TG]

That makes your position a little clearer Jantar. Nothing wrong with that process, it just may take a bit longer to get your money back. Longer than dealing with the insurers anyway.

I'm not sure that the District Court would be receptive to hearing a civil matter like that unless it's over $7500, hence the setting up of Disputes Tribunals.

Although this thread has convuluted it could be of use to someone in this position later on.

[Jantar]

....I'm not sure that the District Court would be receptive to hearing a civil matter like that unless it's over $7500, hence the setting up of Disputes Tribunals......

I can assure you that the District court will hear matters on small amounts. Its just a bit dearer to file in the District court, but once a matter is heard there it is much easier to get your money.