Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

[Amethyst]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

That's okay, I know I might be sounding a bit pessimistic I am just worried for you.

I'm going to ask someone to look over the CFA, as that doesn't seem quite as it should be.

[mnutter30]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

Thank you I do appreciate it.
As you can probably tell it's the first thing I think about when I wake up and the last thing before I go to bed! Not healthy at all really for all of us as a family.

[Amethyst]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

It's okay honestly xxx I just wish I knew more about insurance and personal injury to be able to help you more.

[des8]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

I do think you should consider seeking professional advice.

Aviva will be deeply concerned that for the vehicle damage claim your wife said it was caused by a third unnamed party.
A long time later she and your sons lodge PA claims but claim you caused the accident.
In their eyes fraud is writ large and clear.
However they have admitted to being the RTA insurer, which means that in the event damages & costs are awarded against you they will meet them,
but can then recover them from you. To avoid repaying Aviva you would have to show that they were wrong to withdraw indemnity.
Difficult if your wife has apparently changed her version of events.

IMO your wife should send a signed for letter to CMC cancelling their appointment on the basis they have misrepresented her position and filed false particulars of claim.
Then she should file at court N434 notice of change of solicitor, and N279 notice of discontinuance.

If your childrens claims are similar, similar steps need to be taken.

However as already alluded to, the contract with the CMC may have cancellation charges built in (altho' these could be disputed if the POC is a flight of fancy), and Aviva could oppose the discontinuance or perhaps make a claim for costs.
Hence take professional advice.

As for dodgy:it already looks that way due to the apparent different versions of the cause of the accident.

Your CMC should really have been taken action against the MIB

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi All - New member in need of help and advice!

Do you have a copy of this ?

[mnutter30]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

No I haven't got a copy

[Tools]

Re: Hi All - New member in need of help and advice!

Amethyst has asked me to put a fresh pair of eyes across this, so here is my assessment of the situation, bear with me I ramble sometimes. The advice you have been given by all so far is good so I am not overlooking that.

The reason Aviva have withdrawn their indemnity - By driving in the manner put forward by the CMC (yes, I know it's BullSh*t), you were in effect driving against their conditions of being insured.

To explain this a little easier, if you were doing 100mph, or over the drink drive limit etc, then you would be driving illegally/otherwise in accordance with Road Traffic Regs, meaning you had gone against the terms of you being covered by insurance as a named driver on the policy.

If your wifes claim were to be successful, then because of your "driving style", you wouldn't be covered and therefore Aviva wouldn't be liable (all liability/indemnity of Aviva removed), meaning the claims company would come after you personally (as an uninsured driver). This could have implications on your license too so beware.

If you can defend and refute the allegations against your "driving style", who can vouch for you???, that's right your wife and boys...........but hang on, if they back up your story then they have made a false claim against you based on the Jackanory the CMC has entered in their Particulars of Claim.

Your wife (and boys) need to drop the claims against you/Aviva and make a strong complaint to the CMC's for blatantly lying on the POC, threaten them with the Solicitors Regulation Authority for coercing your wife/boys to make a claim and falsley representing them.

[Amethyst]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

I do think you should consider seeking professional advice.

Aviva will be deeply concerned that for the vehicle damage claim your wife said it was caused by a third unnamed party.
A long time later she and your sons lodge PA claims but claim you caused the accident.
In their eyes fraud is writ large and clear.
However they have admitted to being the RTA insurer, which means that in the event damages & costs are awarded against you they will meet them,
but can then recover them from you. To avoid repaying Aviva you would have to show that they were wrong to withdraw indemnity.
Difficult if your wife has apparently changed her version of events.

IMO your wife should send a signed for letter to CMC cancelling their appointment on the basis they have misrepresented her position and filed false particulars of claim.
Then she should file at court N434 notice of change of solicitor, and N279 notice of discontinuance.

If your childrens claims are similar, similar steps need to be taken.

However as already alluded to, the contract with the CMC may have cancellation charges built in (altho' these could be disputed if the POC is a flight of fancy), and Aviva could oppose the discontinuance or perhaps make a claim for costs.
Hence take professional advice.

As for dodgy:it already looks that way due to the apparent different versions of the cause of the accident.

Your CMC should really have been taken action against the MIB

Thanks Des.

[Amethyst]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

On the CMC issue - Do you know what costs they claimed from the insurance company in the first claim that's all sorted ? Did you have to pay them something like 30% of their costs out of the compensation you received ?

( the CFA is standard fayre apparently - just odd having the 0% success fee listed )

[ilfordhammer1]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

I did road traffic work as a solicitor in the late 90s / early 2000s so my knowledge is rusty and out of date. If you can't get your own lawyers on board before the deadline for the court document, then you could complain to the insurance company at the highest level you can find out about. Write a very detailed letter with a chronology of what has happened between you and them, and copy them all relevant correspondence. Make it clear that your complaint is that they have withdrawn indemnity without explaining why, and that you disagree with this decision.

Then. when you write to the court with your court document, copy them the complaint letter to the insurers, along with the enclosures. Explain to the court that you think your insurance company got it wrong and that they are legally obliged to cover you. However, you are reluctant to incur the costs of legal advice until you have had a proper response from the insurers to your complaint. On this basis, you can ask for a stay of proceedings while this is resolved, or at least some sort of generous court timetable which gives you time to sort this out.

When you write to the court, give the name, direct line (if possible) and reference number of the claims handler at the insurance company and suggest that the district judge might like to invite the insurer to attend the procedural court hearing which (will be lined up soon). Tell the insurer that you have suggested this to the court. This may at least get them worried and deal with your complaint properly.

Like others here, I don't know how the insurer can say they are not liable as against third parties. Their issues against you are a separate matter. The district judge is more likely to be sympathetic to you and give you some time to sort things out, because you are unrepresented and it's an unusual situation.

Check out Bar Direct - free representation from a junior barrister. Not sure if you would qualify. Details on Bar Council website. Good luck

[des8]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

. Explain to the court that you think your insurance company got it wrong and that they are legally obliged to cover you.

Like others here, I don't know how the insurer can say they are not liable as against third parties.

Whilst not wishing to start an argument, I don't believe Aviva have said they are not liable to the third party. They have agreed they are RTA insurers (posts 53 & 55) and therefore will meet any award & costs made to the claimant.
I see them as fulfilling their obligations as insurers of the vehicle now being blamed by CMC for the accident, whilst reserving the right to recover from the driver.
As with any insurance claim it will be for the driver (in the event he loses this court case) to prove he was covered by the policy, and demonstrate the withdrawal of indemnity is faulty, and so Aviva cannot recover from him. This will be a different case, as you say " Their issues against you are a separate matter".

[ilfordhammer1]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

Whilst not wishing to start an argument, I don't believe Aviva have said they are not liable to the third party. They have agreed they are RTA insurers (posts 53 & 55) and therefore will meet any award & costs made to the claimant.
I see them as fulfilling their obligations as insurers of the vehicle now being blamed by CMC for the accident, whilst reserving the right to recover from the driver.
As with any insurance claim it will be for the driver (in the event he loses this court case) to prove he was covered by the policy, and demonstrate the withdrawal of indemnity is faulty, and so Aviva cannot recover from him. This will be a different case, as you say " Their issues against you are a separate matter".

Ok - it seems I've got confused. I don't understand why they are not providing him with representation if indemnity as against TPs applies.

[Amethyst]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

Aviva haven't disclosed their reason for withdrawing indemnity.


Just this

[des8]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

If they supply their insured with representation and then lost it would make it difficult for them then to reclaim any award made to the claimant.
What they do is to withdraw indemnity from their insured, but under RTA they meet any award made by the court.
The insurer can then reclaim that from the insured.

The intention is to ensure injured third parties do not miss out on compensation because the driver is uninsured, whilst allowing the insurers the opportunity of recouping their loss from the driver (if he has any assets!).

As the insurers have withdrawn indemnity (due presumably to a perceived serious breach or perceived fraud) the claimant has to join them in as second defendants.
The insurers then will set out their own defence.

I still think, from OPs description of the incident that the claims company have issued proceedings against the wrong person, and should be trying for an award from MIB, if anybody.
I can see this getting nasty, and the stress alone causing unwanted domestic problems.
IMO discontinuance is the way forward

[Amethyst]

Re: Mnutter v Insurance company withdrawn indemnity

I do think any option at this stage is going to end up in quite a large chunk of money being lost by the family overall.