Insurers won't pay third party

B

Bushi

New User
Joined
28 November 2015
Messages
3
Visit site
Hi, I think that I am liable for a third party claim but my insurer won't pay.

Has anyone had a similar experience? My horse spooked (because of an animal on the other side of a hedge) in to a passing car and my stirrup dented the car door (in an expensive way). I notified my insurance. It seemed straight forward to me that the driver had done nothing wrong and it was my resposibility. My insurance company have denied liabilty leaving the poor car owner to claim off his own insurance with obvious consequences to his own policy. It seems incredibly unfair; I know how I would feel if the situation were reversed.

I did not expect this result at all. It seems to be a matter of negligence and as I wasn't negligent, under the animal act they say I am not liable but I now feel like I am not protected in the way I had assumed while out riding. This is not what I expected at all. Any thoughts or advice for proceeding please? Would you expect this type of claim to be paid? I would say that they are protecting their own backsides - not mine!
 
No I would not expect the claim to be paid. No-one did anything wrong. It was just an accident. Your insurance cover is to protect YOU from claims, not to protect drivers from your horse when it is only behaving like a horse.

Also, I'd have to question how close and how fast the driver was passing you if your horse spooked right into a car?

As to what to do next, you only have two choices. Let it go, or pay the driver yourself. The driver can sue you if he thinks he has a case, in which case your insurance company will take up defending the claim.
 
Last edited:
Actually if they took you to small claims court, they would be successful. There's been case law recently (can't remember the names off the top of my head) but even if the horse is 'behaving like a horse' it is still your responsibility. I'd hope the guy fades into the distance but if he does try to take you to court you will need to give your insurance company a sharp prod. 3rd party insurance is to protect the general public from unexpected events.
 
EQUIDAE said:
. 3rd party insurance is to protect the general public from unexpected events.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's to protect the holder of the insurance, in this case the rider, from having to pay out damages on claims made against them by other people.
 
I agree it seems unfair but I think in law you are not liable it was an accident .
That why you have comprehensive insurance on your car so when something happens that's no ones fault you have cover .
The case where an owner was found liable when they where not present and in no way negilent was a personal injury case when a driver sustained hideous life changing injuries when he collided with loose horses on a road at night I don't think it gives any precedent in your circumtance.
The two insurance companies ought to sort it out between them
I glad you the horse and the driver where in no way hurt that's the main thing .
I bet you got a big fright .
 
EQUIDAE said:
Actually if they took you to small claims court, they would be successful. There's been case law recently (can't remember the names off the top of my head) but even if the horse is 'behaving like a horse' it is still your responsibility. I'd hope the guy fades into the distance but if he does try to take you to court you will need to give your insurance company a sharp prod. 3rd party insurance is to protect the general public from unexpected events.
Click to expand...

That was lost at appeal as far as I know as was the recent case of a rider trying to claim from the owner of a horse .
I am afraid OP there is a very telling difference between third party liability insurance and what most horse policies offer which is public liability cover. In public liability you have to be proved negligent for the insurance to cut in and very rarely do they pay without a court case or very clear cut circumstances.
 
I was riding through a village, past a parked car. My horse saw his reflection and kicked out, denting the rear wing and breaking the lights. I stopped and knocked on the door, told them I was fully insured and would pay if they got a quote. The insurers wouldnt pay (as no negligence involved) and I ended up forking out over £300.
 
Just to make it clear third party would have paid out most likely in this case ,however public liability (which it most likely is) wouldnt. There is a subtle difference and most riders assume it the same thing which its not.
 
stormox said:
I was riding through a village, past a parked car. My horse saw his reflection and kicked out, denting the rear wing and breaking the lights. I stopped and knocked on the door, told them I was fully insured and would pay if they got a quote. The insurers wouldnt pay (as no negligence involved) and I ended up forking out over £300.
Click to expand...

If your insured also one of your conditions of cover is never to admit liability!!!!
 
Just to make it clear third party would have paid out most likely in this case ,however public liability (which it most likely is) wouldnt. There is a subtle difference and most riders assume it the same thing which its not.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any difference between third party liability insurance and public liability insurance. I don't think anyone would be able to find cover for accidents for which they feel morally responsible where there is no legal liability. The terms third party and public are largely interchangeable for insurance purposes.
 
ycbm said:
I don't think there is any difference between third party liability insurance and public liability insurance. I don't think anyone would be able to find cover for accidents for which they feel morally responsible where there is no legal liability. The terms third party and public are largely interchangeable for insurance purposes.
Click to expand...

There is a very big difference if you look on a car policy they are dealt with differently within a policy.
It is the difference between responsibility for TP against PL that makes it a different type of insurance.
Third party covers direct physical damage to somebody's property caused on balance of probability by you. Public liability covers for any consequence of a negligent act on your part.
 
Surely the most straightforward thing to do is to offer to pay for the damage, or if that is too much, pay the driver's insurance excess, so that they are not out of pocket should they choose to claim.

Have you checked the excess on your public liability? - my BDS policy is £500, so it has to be more than a ding to make it worth claiming, even if they would pay up - which they wouldn't.
 
I think you have two options here 1. Go back to the driver of car tell him your insurance won't take it any further with the current details, if they want to persue it themselves through insurance or otherwise that is up to them. Or 2. Tell them you will pay yourself or offer to pay half.
 
popsdosh said:
There is a very big difference if you look on a car policy they are dealt with differently within a policy.
It is the difference between responsibility for TP against PL that makes it a different type of insurance.
Third party covers direct physical damage to somebody's property caused on balance of probability by you. Public liability covers for any consequence of a negligent act on your part.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying just to argue with you popsdosh and I'm sorry if this comes across that way. But I think it's really important for people to understand what they can and can't insure for.

I've checked my own motor policy and it contains only a section called 'Liabilities to third parties' and makes it clear in the first sentence that it covers only legal liability and nothing else.

I still don't believe it is possible to insure for damage to third party property when there is no liability. If your own policy mentions 'balance of probabilities' then I think what they must mean is 'balance of probabilities that you are legally liable for the damage' which would be their decision, made to avoid them paying unnecessary court costs.

Can I be a pain and ask you either to quote or to point me to the actual wording in your policy?
 
I dont think I ever said you could insure a none fault risk to somebody else but there is a subtle difference between third party liability insurance and public liability insurance which is what I was trying to get across. To simplify it so maybe you will understand if you collide with another vehicle and its you that has caused the damage third party will pay . However if it was public liability and for example you had skidded on ice the view would be that the cause was outside your control so you would not be responsible .
 
popsdosh said:
I dont think I ever said you could insure a none fault risk to somebody else but there is a subtle difference between third party liability insurance and public liability insurance which is what I was trying to get across. To simplify it so maybe you will understand if you collide with another vehicle and its you that has caused the damage third party will pay . However if it was public liability and for example you had skidded on ice the view would be that the cause was outside your control so you would not be responsible .
Click to expand...

Popsdosh I'm sorry but I can't find any difference at all on scouring the internet between third party liability and public liability insurance, and I really believe that the terms are interchangeable and mean exactly the same thing.

If you are liable in law, then third party and public liability will pay out. If you are not liable in law, then they will not pay out and will defend any case taken against you unless they think it would be more cost effective just to pay up. I believe that both third party liability insurance and public liability insurance would treat the incident you mention identically.

Can you point me to anything that says otherwise, because so far I've spent half an hour online and only found evidence that the two are identical. No legal liability, no claim. The legal liability is not different just because of the name of your insurance.

Again, I am sorry to sound as if I'm arguing with you but this is important, as the OP has discovered.
 
Last edited:
popsdosh said:
I dont think I ever said you could insure a none fault risk to somebody else but there is a subtle difference between third party liability insurance and public liability insurance which is what I was trying to get across. To simplify it so maybe you will understand if you collide with another vehicle and its you that has caused the damage third party will pay . However if it was public liability and for example you had skidded on ice the view would be that the cause was outside your control so you would not be responsible .
Click to expand...

Not my experience when car behind me lost control on black ice and went into back of my car. Their insurance paid.
 
bouncing_ball said:
Not my experience when car behind me lost control on black ice and went into back of my car. Their insurance paid.
Click to expand...

Nor mine, when someone in their car skidded into mine on ice. Their insurance paid up. I don't think it's classed as an act of God. Although, the saying 'no good deed goes unpunished' came to mind in my case. I'd already pulled into side of road, when I saw other car start sliding. The other driver, who had kid in car seat in back, was out of control and whacked into the side of mine. She was quite upset, though not a particularly violent crash. I felt so sorry for her, I even took her and her kid home!! (she didn't want to drive her car again) I later found out from my insurance company she'd told her insurance company it was my fault!!!:( Her insurance eventually paid up though!:)
 
Goldenstar said:
I agree it seems unfair but I think in law you are not liable it was an accident .
That why you have comprehensive insurance on your car so when something happens that's no ones fault you have cover .
The case where an owner was found liable when they where not present and in no way negilent was a personal injury case when a driver sustained hideous life changing injuries when he collided with loose horses on a road at night ...
Click to expand...

The owner of the horse was liable and negligent, even if they didn't mean to be, it was their responsibility to ensure their horse could not get out onto a public road. Insurance companies don't deal with accidents - there are no accidents in insurance land - someone is always liable. Fully comprehensive insurance cover on your car, enables you to have your own car fixed if you hit another person's car and it was your fault. Otherwise it's just third party (plus usually fire and theft) where your insurance just pays out for the other person's car to be repaired and you have to fund your own car's repairs.
 
I've recently had a very similar incident where a runaway pony and cart hit a vehicle causing damage to the car. I assumed my public liability cover as part of a society membership would cover me, they didn't refuse but suggested the claim should be made against the public liabilty section of my household insurance as the excess would be lower. Swinton had to check but paid up without argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top