| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim 17:34 - Jul 7 with 3788 views | uefacup81 |
I've had notification from my insurer that they have received a claim from a third party for 'uninsured losses' dating back to an incident that allegedly happened over nine months ago.
The allegation is that I parked alongside the claimant's vehicle on a retail park and caused damage to the vehicle by opening my car door against the side of their vehicle. Apparently this was witnessed from one of the shops.
Based on where I normally park in that car-park, the nearest shop is about 35m away, so this witness must have exceptional eye-sight. Given the lines of sight required as well, they'd have had to have been in a pretty precise location, looking directly down between the rows of cars, at the precise moment of the alleged impact.
What's the best way to respond to this? Deny all knowledge of having been there at the date/time in question, and put the burden of proof on the claimant to prove the claim and/or produce whatever witness they claim to have?
It seems a really weird thing to make a claim for - especially as I'm sure they can't prove that their vehicle wasn't damaged prior to the alleged incident. It also seems a bit odd that they'd wait the best part of nine months before deciding to make a claim.
I'm convinced this is bullsh*t, but don't want to give my insurer the slightest opportunity to settle the claim in order to get an easy life.
Any advice? [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 17:41]
|  |
| |  |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:39 - Jul 7 with 2322 views | Swansea_Blue |
I'd be cautious about denying all knowledge of having been there, in case you're on camera. Unless you know you weren't on that day, in which case tell them to go away.
I'd have thought the onus is on them to provide proof. This isn't legal advice though as I'm a clueless d1ck. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:44 - Jul 7 with 2301 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:39 - Jul 7 by Swansea_Blue |
I'd be cautious about denying all knowledge of having been there, in case you're on camera. Unless you know you weren't on that day, in which case tell them to go away.
I'd have thought the onus is on them to provide proof. This isn't legal advice though as I'm a clueless d1ck. |
It's a retail park I use probably every couple of months for various reasons. Given that over nine months have passed, though, I can't be sure I was there on the day in question.
I'd just rather the claimant was forced to provide evidence to prove my alleged presence, rather than my insurer deciding that, on the balance of probabilities, I was most likely there. [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 17:46]
| |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:46 - Jul 7 with 2289 views | Pendejo |
Burden of proof is surely on the plaintiff;
1. To prove a loss occurred
2. That you are responsible
Your response is pretty much what you have written here, plus a diagram showing where you normally park.
Door on door is common in car parks, I have 2 marks on my car from someone else's door, but you'd probably need to invest in some expensive CSI stylee paint comparison to prove who was responsible. Even video footage could not conclusively prove a dent Etc even if it showed contact. [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 23:01]
|  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:52 - Jul 7 with 2274 views | waveneyblue |
For my sins - I work in the glamourous world of insurance (although thankfully not Private Motor Insurance)
The onus is on claimant to prove you had done it, not for you to prove you didn't.
Ask your insurers to go back to them and ask for actual proof as you DO NOT accept liability.
You may have an issue if an independent witness is willing to make a statement that it was definitely you - but from the details you provided, this seems unlikely from 35 metres away
Hope this helps
Good Luck ! |  | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:03 - Jul 7 with 2235 views | EdwardStone |
I'm no legal expert, but I believe that there is a pillar of Law...
"Time is of the Essence"
The Claimant needs to demonstrate a good reason why they have waited for 9 months before starting a claim against you, otherwise their delay severely weakens their case
My neighbour had a claim against a business struck out because he waited before launching a County Court action
This only applies if it ends up in front of a Judge, but the delay in them making a claim is unreasonable |  | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:10 - Jul 7 with 2219 views | Pinewoodblue |
Unusual for you to to hear about this from your insurance company rather than the other driver.
Just tell your insurers you are an infrequent user of the car park, just a handful of times a year, that you park some distance from any retail outlet. Ask them for more details, remember that the other drivers claim is against you and it is for you to decide if you want your insurer to handle it for you.
Feel you are right to be suspicious. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:17 - Jul 7 with 2204 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:03 - Jul 7 by EdwardStone |
I'm no legal expert, but I believe that there is a pillar of Law...
"Time is of the Essence"
The Claimant needs to demonstrate a good reason why they have waited for 9 months before starting a claim against you, otherwise their delay severely weakens their case
My neighbour had a claim against a business struck out because he waited before launching a County Court action
This only applies if it ends up in front of a Judge, but the delay in them making a claim is unreasonable |
Limitation on a tort of this type is 6 years.
It certainly can be the case, though, that a big delay raises questions of credibility.
"Time is of the essence" is really a contract concept; it is the position you take when you have agreed a deal- and the other side is dragging its heels. If time was of the essence in the original contract (usually because it is made clear that time is a significant part of the deal)- then the delay can be a breach. However, if you take something in for repair with no time limit agreed- time generally only becomes significant when you make "time of the essence" by explicitly saying so and giving a deadline.
Good call on the plasterer's sand by the way! |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:53 - Jul 7 with 2085 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:10 - Jul 7 by Pinewoodblue |
Unusual for you to to hear about this from your insurance company rather than the other driver.
Just tell your insurers you are an infrequent user of the car park, just a handful of times a year, that you park some distance from any retail outlet. Ask them for more details, remember that the other drivers claim is against you and it is for you to decide if you want your insurer to handle it for you.
Feel you are right to be suspicious. |
Indeed. The timing of it all seems as shady as fook.
Supposing someone had damaged my car in a car park badly enough for it to warrant my claiming on my insurance (I'm not sure what sort of force they seem to think I opened my door with...) I definitely wouldn't wait the best part of nine months before starting a claim.
=====
Maybe I'm making connections where they don't exist, but it seems more than coincidental that this whole scenario aligned almost exactly with a semi-acrimonious split with the ex. What makes that relevant, is that about 18mths ago I dinged the side of her dad's car with the door of her car, and he was livid about it at the time (not the most level-headed of blokes, that chap).
The initial contact I had from the insurance company was that they'd had a claim from the claimant's solicitor, but all they'd provided was the registration of my vehicle and a date. After they went back for more information, it took the other side's solicitor about two months to provide the rest of the information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ex's dad is trying it on. I suppose my insurance company would never provide me with details of the claimant, so should I raise my concerns with them about potential fraud? [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 18:53]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:07 - Jul 7 with 2053 views | Basuco |
As someone with no legal knowledge, I would say to your insurance company that you suspect fraud and ask the person who is making the claim to prove that it was your car, identify the space you parked in, state in advance to your insurer the area you always park in. You could mention as well the ex in-law incident and ask if he is the person making the claim. BTW do you recall opening your door on another car? First and foremost tell your insurers that you suspect this is a fraudulent claim and do not settle. |  | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:17 - Jul 7 with 2013 views | NewcyBlue |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:53 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
Indeed. The timing of it all seems as shady as fook.
Supposing someone had damaged my car in a car park badly enough for it to warrant my claiming on my insurance (I'm not sure what sort of force they seem to think I opened my door with...) I definitely wouldn't wait the best part of nine months before starting a claim.
=====
Maybe I'm making connections where they don't exist, but it seems more than coincidental that this whole scenario aligned almost exactly with a semi-acrimonious split with the ex. What makes that relevant, is that about 18mths ago I dinged the side of her dad's car with the door of her car, and he was livid about it at the time (not the most level-headed of blokes, that chap).
The initial contact I had from the insurance company was that they'd had a claim from the claimant's solicitor, but all they'd provided was the registration of my vehicle and a date. After they went back for more information, it took the other side's solicitor about two months to provide the rest of the information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ex's dad is trying it on. I suppose my insurance company would never provide me with details of the claimant, so should I raise my concerns with them about potential fraud? [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 18:53]
|
Didn’t your ex forget to put a handbrake on and it rolled into a neighbours car or something?
What happened with that? I dare say I missed the follow up whilst at sea. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:22 - Jul 7 with 2003 views | EdwardStone |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:17 - Jul 7 by sparks |
Limitation on a tort of this type is 6 years.
It certainly can be the case, though, that a big delay raises questions of credibility.
"Time is of the essence" is really a contract concept; it is the position you take when you have agreed a deal- and the other side is dragging its heels. If time was of the essence in the original contract (usually because it is made clear that time is a significant part of the deal)- then the delay can be a breach. However, if you take something in for repair with no time limit agreed- time generally only becomes significant when you make "time of the essence" by explicitly saying so and giving a deadline.
Good call on the plasterer's sand by the way! |
I know a little more about building than I do about the Law.....unless it's Planning Law
All round to your for pizza any time soon? | | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:28 - Jul 7 with 1978 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:22 - Jul 7 by EdwardStone |
I know a little more about building than I do about the Law.....unless it's Planning Law
All round to your for pizza any time soon? |
Just put in the order for the pre cast oven... Just need to sort the granite dust and artifical grass for the patio now, then build and render the oven, do the addition table thing to the side, and cover the whole thing in brick slips.
So next decade maybe! | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:29 - Jul 7 with 1982 views | WeWereZombies |
If you are, like me, a sad old git who keeps all of his credit card receipts you could have a trawl back through them and see if any correspond to the date that this incident is alleged to have happened. If you find one that is on that date but for somewhere else it could be useful as proof you were not in the car park at the time the damage was supposed to have happened. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:30 - Jul 7 with 1974 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:53 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
Indeed. The timing of it all seems as shady as fook.
Supposing someone had damaged my car in a car park badly enough for it to warrant my claiming on my insurance (I'm not sure what sort of force they seem to think I opened my door with...) I definitely wouldn't wait the best part of nine months before starting a claim.
=====
Maybe I'm making connections where they don't exist, but it seems more than coincidental that this whole scenario aligned almost exactly with a semi-acrimonious split with the ex. What makes that relevant, is that about 18mths ago I dinged the side of her dad's car with the door of her car, and he was livid about it at the time (not the most level-headed of blokes, that chap).
The initial contact I had from the insurance company was that they'd had a claim from the claimant's solicitor, but all they'd provided was the registration of my vehicle and a date. After they went back for more information, it took the other side's solicitor about two months to provide the rest of the information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ex's dad is trying it on. I suppose my insurance company would never provide me with details of the claimant, so should I raise my concerns with them about potential fraud? [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 18:53]
|
Absolutely no reason at all why your insurers would not tell you who the claimant was. Its information you must be entitled to, frankly.
The best approach is to be frank with them. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:31 - Jul 7 with 1963 views | hoppy |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:39 - Jul 7 by Swansea_Blue |
I'd be cautious about denying all knowledge of having been there, in case you're on camera. Unless you know you weren't on that day, in which case tell them to go away.
I'd have thought the onus is on them to provide proof. This isn't legal advice though as I'm a clueless d1ck. |
But you're 'OUR' clueless d1ck. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:31 - Jul 7 with 1965 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:17 - Jul 7 by NewcyBlue |
Didn’t your ex forget to put a handbrake on and it rolled into a neighbours car or something?
What happened with that? I dare say I missed the follow up whilst at sea. |
Yeah, that was her. I can't remember the precise outcome, but I think she sucked it up in the end and didn't bother to challenge the level of damage the neighbour was claiming for.
As for Basuco's comment - with it being nine months ago I can't recall for sure whether I was there or not, let alone whether my door made contact with another car if I was there. I'll likely take that line in my response to my insurer:
"I do go there from time to time, but obviously can't remember if I was there on the date/time in question. I clearly do not accept any liability at this stage. Please would you request that the claimant provide clear evidence of both the presence of my vehicle in the car park, and the alleged damage being caused by my vehicle." | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:31 - Jul 7 with 1961 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 18:53 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
Indeed. The timing of it all seems as shady as fook.
Supposing someone had damaged my car in a car park badly enough for it to warrant my claiming on my insurance (I'm not sure what sort of force they seem to think I opened my door with...) I definitely wouldn't wait the best part of nine months before starting a claim.
=====
Maybe I'm making connections where they don't exist, but it seems more than coincidental that this whole scenario aligned almost exactly with a semi-acrimonious split with the ex. What makes that relevant, is that about 18mths ago I dinged the side of her dad's car with the door of her car, and he was livid about it at the time (not the most level-headed of blokes, that chap).
The initial contact I had from the insurance company was that they'd had a claim from the claimant's solicitor, but all they'd provided was the registration of my vehicle and a date. After they went back for more information, it took the other side's solicitor about two months to provide the rest of the information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ex's dad is trying it on. I suppose my insurance company would never provide me with details of the claimant, so should I raise my concerns with them about potential fraud? [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 18:53]
|
Be interesting to know how they knew who you were insured with, also to know when the estimates were obtained. | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:34 - Jul 7 with 1950 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:31 - Jul 7 by Pinewoodblue |
Be interesting to know how they knew who you were insured with, also to know when the estimates were obtained. |
That's an interesting point that you raise.
The claim has come to my insurer through the claimant's solicitor rather than through their insurer. Would a solicitor be able to access information such as that, or is it only accessible to insurers? | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:36 - Jul 7 with 1938 views | hoppy |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:29 - Jul 7 by WeWereZombies |
If you are, like me, a sad old git who keeps all of his credit card receipts you could have a trawl back through them and see if any correspond to the date that this incident is alleged to have happened. If you find one that is on that date but for somewhere else it could be useful as proof you were not in the car park at the time the damage was supposed to have happened. |
But you're 'OUR' sad old git. | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:40 - Jul 7 with 1930 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:29 - Jul 7 by WeWereZombies |
If you are, like me, a sad old git who keeps all of his credit card receipts you could have a trawl back through them and see if any correspond to the date that this incident is alleged to have happened. If you find one that is on that date but for somewhere else it could be useful as proof you were not in the car park at the time the damage was supposed to have happened. |
Online banking might even do it- the statement may well show what you were doing that day...
You probably also need to ask when it is said to have happened- your insurers probably should make sure they have that sort of detail before responding, but that is broadly their call. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:43 - Jul 7 with 1923 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:40 - Jul 7 by sparks |
Online banking might even do it- the statement may well show what you were doing that day...
You probably also need to ask when it is said to have happened- your insurers probably should make sure they have that sort of detail before responding, but that is broadly their call. |
They've provided me with the date and time (down to the precise minute, which seems oddly specific).
I've had a cursory glance through my records, which throws up nothing to either confirm or deny my presence. In honesty, I'm not minded to expend any more effort at this end looking back through records unless and until the claimant can prove beyond doubt that I was there | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:46 - Jul 7 with 1912 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:43 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
They've provided me with the date and time (down to the precise minute, which seems oddly specific).
I've had a cursory glance through my records, which throws up nothing to either confirm or deny my presence. In honesty, I'm not minded to expend any more effort at this end looking back through records unless and until the claimant can prove beyond doubt that I was there |
The insurers will need to provide confirmation of whether they accept or dispute liability- assuming this has been done via the RTA portal (which i imagine it has) there is quite a short timescale to do so. If liability is denied there are obligations to provide documents etc.
Its entirely normal to have things come through solicitors- but you cannot make a claim without identifying the claimant. You are absolutely entitled to know who that is. Similarly you can make it clear to your insurers that you consider that liability should be rejected, and that the other side should be required to provide their evidence. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:53 - Jul 7 with 1879 views | Basuco |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:31 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
Yeah, that was her. I can't remember the precise outcome, but I think she sucked it up in the end and didn't bother to challenge the level of damage the neighbour was claiming for.
As for Basuco's comment - with it being nine months ago I can't recall for sure whether I was there or not, let alone whether my door made contact with another car if I was there. I'll likely take that line in my response to my insurer:
"I do go there from time to time, but obviously can't remember if I was there on the date/time in question. I clearly do not accept any liability at this stage. Please would you request that the claimant provide clear evidence of both the presence of my vehicle in the car park, and the alleged damage being caused by my vehicle." |
It would be worth going through bank statements and credit card statements on that day to see if you purchased anything that day and where. | | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:56 - Jul 7 with 1863 views | factual_blue |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:36 - Jul 7 by hoppy |
But you're 'OUR' sad old git. |
It's just a shame about the battenberg. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:00 - Jul 7 with 1859 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:53 - Jul 7 by Basuco |
It would be worth going through bank statements and credit card statements on that day to see if you purchased anything that day and where. |
Yup, done that and it seems I didn't use my bank card that day - which isn't an oddity in itself.
Based on the various comments above, I'm considering a response as follows:
Dear [Insurer]
Thank you for providing me with further details.
Based on the information provided, and having briefly referred to my own records, I have been unable to ascertain whether I was present at the alleged location at the date and time in question.
As such, I wish to dispute this claim, and would request that you raise the relevant dispute via the RTA portal and with the claimant's solicitors.
So that I may fully assess the claimant's claims, and provide a full and reasoned response, please would you provide me with:
*Details of the claimant
*The claimant's evidence upon which they intend to rely to place me at the scene of the alleged incident
*The claimant's evidence upon which they intend to rely to prove that any damage to their vehicle was caused by my actions
*Any explanation provided by the claimant for the significant delay between the alleged incident, and the claim having been made
Yours...
Should that suffice, and cover off the relevant points? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
