Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mick Yeomans
Hypothetical situation.
A driver of a company vehicle is in an accident whilst driving from the offices to a site and they had an accident. On investigation they were deemed to be 'AT FAULT', perhaps by error of judgement or lapse of concentration.
How and from who would he claim for any serious personal injuries that they might suffer?
What do other companies have in place should this scenario occur?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RA
Company Insurance,
Always ensure you are insured with a well established insurance company- there are ones out there who have seriously dodgey policies and these guys are regulated.
Get the brokers out, get a feel for the market and what's on offer, but don't always opt for the cheapest- if it's cheap it's cheap for a reason- there is USUALLY a clause somewhere to get them off the hook if you don't keep to their stringent rules.
RA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mick Yeomans
RA
Thanks for your reply, however, it is the fact that the accident is 'Driver at Fault'. The comprehensive insurance covers the vehicle and all third parties. The question is who would the driver claim against for any serious personal injury, disability, loss of earnings or inability to work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By lewes
The driver shouldnt be able to claim of off anyone if it is identified as their fault.
Otherwise drivers would be crashing all the time to claim compensation.
As far as I know you can only claim if your are a third party to the accident and had no part in the cause (i.e. passengers, other road users etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mick Yeomans
Thanks Lewes,
That is how I understand it, however, do other companies take any other policies to cover these circumstances or is it 'Sorry mate, SSP and income support for the rest of your life!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By sagalout
I think you may need to consider a couple of points.
Is the driver at work, carrying out an approved activity on an acceptable route or is he on "a folly of his own"?
At fault is a simple premise, however there is a clear difference between the two most obvious extremes of at fault.
-being successfully prosecuted for reckless or dangerous driving
-being involved in an accident where the insurance company has determined driver at fault for their liability purposes.
What applies if an employee has an accident at work? How does fault of the employee impinge in those circumstances? Why would it be any different in this case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RA
Mick,
I still feel the Company Insurance will get hit as I have encountered a very similar incident. Any decent law team will say the man would not have received the injury had he not been working.
Insurance here is getting as bad as the states, I wouldn't hold much hope of beating off a claim on this one mate. Talked to an insurance mate of mine and he is suggesting the same- you will have a fight on your hands as he was working on the company's behalf using the company's equipment- i.e. even if the failure lies at the doorstep of the operator/driver.
RA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Mick,
Just because the police investigation/report identifies 'driver at fault' does not necessarily absolve the Company of some liabilities.... If the driver was tired for example (because his employer obliged him to work all the hours that god sends) then the police would identify 'driver at fault' but the guy would have a perfectly good and justifiable claim against his employers. Or if the driver lost control because his boss was calling him on (hands free) car radio....
And 'comprehensive insurance' means different things to different people and different companies. Check the precise wording in the policy cover. My own (private) comprehensive insurance DOES cover me for loss or injury to myself if I am involved in an RTA. If it's someone else at fault, the claim would likely be against the other driver - if I am at fault then its my own insurance that would pay.
That's why 'comprehensive' motorcycle insurance is so frighteningly expensive - its compensating all those two wheelers who spend a lot of time in hospital 'because they deliberately crashed'....??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RA
If the comp ins doesn't get hit, the EL definitely will.
RA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fred Pratley
Under most comprehensive policies, all persons injured can normally claim direct losses against the insurer of the party held as being at fault, including the at fault driver, in the same way as damage to the "at fault" vehicle is paid for by the insurer.
Indirect things - Compensation for pain and suffering etc are a different issue and I would not expect a valid claim could be made by the "at fault" driver (excluding the working all hours etc) and even if the claim were accepted, there would surely be a deduction according to his/her degree of fault?
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally Bell
I may be missing the point here, but if the driver was working (as opposed to being on a folly), and was at fault (through a lapse of concentration / tiredness etc.), could this not be classed as an 'accident at work'?
Would it be fair to say that if the lapse of concentration, error etc. (providing it wasn't something obviously unacceptable like drink driving )could be caused by something to do with work? Obviously risk assessments should be in place for this kind of situation but if it was an 'accident at work', surely it would be feasible to make a claim against the employer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mick Yeomans
For information this is part of the response from the insurers brokers:
There is no cover under any comprehensive policy for the drivers injuries. Any injury claim for the driver would always have to be pursued against the third party. If there was one.
Your own insurers will not refuse to deal with any own damage claim as a result of overworking unless serious gross negligence was involved. The same would be said of an un-roadworthy vehicle. Neither would they decline any third party claim made against them as insurers have a responsibility under the road traffic act to deal with any third party claim.
With regards to the drivers injuries he may take out a civil prosecution against the company if a solicitor thought he had a strong enough case against them but your fleet insurers would not be involved in any civil action bought against you by the driver as he would not be classed as a third party. However, it is possible your employers liability policy would kick in if it could be proved that the company were negligent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
"if it could be proved that the company were negligent"
This is the crucial bit. Remember we are talking about insurances of liability. No liability = no valid claim.
An "at fault" driver is unlikely to succeed in a claim unless they can find someone to pin the blame on. Assuming the vehicle itself is roadworthy, maintained etc, the company has assured itself that the driver was authorised and competent to use the vehicle etc etc then where's the liability?
Companies may choose to purchase long term health insurance for employees in this situation (or any extended sickness/disease) but there is certainly no obligation to do so. Failing this then we all provide support via Disablement Benefits etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.