Ask an expert
A while ago, I hired a van and caused an accident with another car. I recently attended a dispute tribunal hearing, which found that - I (as the driver) was liable directly for paying 3rd party damage costs (and NOT the hire firm, that I assumed had covered me for insurance). For unknown reasons, they decided that they would not claim off their own insurers, and therefore, the third parties insurers sought recovery from myself. the tribunal agree, it was my responsibility
questions
1. was the tribunal correct, in that it is the Driver that must pay third party costs, (and not the hire firm)
2. if there is an understanding of have insurance cover, is the hire firm able to later, decide they wont use their own insurer. ?
3. I was not actually "offered insurance" as required by the Land transport rules and I was not provided a copy of the Hire Agreement, when taking delivery of the van(as also required by the Land transport Rule 1999.
The only reference to Insurance, was a handwritten addition to the Agreement stating "excess 1000".
Does this failure to document insurance provision clearly in the Hire Agreement AND failure to meet Land Transport rules, grounds for seeking cost recovery by myself for the Third Party damages?(from the Hire Firm)
Had I know they would not be using an Insurer and where in fact "self insuring", then I would never have hired the van (or used my own insurance.
can you assist with these questions please
It's a little unclear as to whether or not you were offered insurance. You say you weren't, but then you say the agreement states $1000 excess, which would indicate that you were offered insurance with a $1000 excess applying, therefore your liability should be limited to $1000. Any claim exceeding this amount should be the responsibility of the hire company.
In answer to your questions;
1. The driver should only be liable for costs up to $1000.
2. Most hire companies self insure, but this really bears no relevance in determining who is liable. Even if an outside insurance company was involved, the insurance company would still be seeking recovery from the driver for the damage.
3. This is a moot point. It sounds like you were insured with a $1000 excess. If this is the case, the hire company had complied with the regulations.
What was the name of the car rental company?