Car Insurance - Letter of Demand

[NeedAChange]

Would like to find out can a 3rd party insurance company hold you liable for a motor vehicle accident that you were not involved in? If I for example borrowed my cousin a vehicle for a month and he was involved in a bumper bashing, now 10 months later get an email with a letter of Demand from an insurance for something close to R20k.

I have no knowledge of the accident and my car was probably repaired properly or had very little damages.

 

[beefymoocow]

Yep you are. If your cousin got into an accident with your car and it was his fault. Usually your insurance company will pay for it but I’m assuming you don’t have insurance. So you have to pay then if you want sue your cousin for the 20k afterwards.

The only other way to cover yourself is to prove you didn’t give permission to your cousin for using your car ie stolen from you. You will need a police report. Your cousin will need to be convicted with a criminal record. But if you don’t you tacitly giving permission to use your card.

 

[genetic]

You clearly didn't have insurance - mistake #1, so the other party's insurance company is claiming damages directly from you.

Get an affidavit stating you weren't the driver, and I suggest you get a lawyer too, unless you want to fight the claim yourself.

 

[beefymoocow]

You clearly didn't have insurance - mistake #1, so the other party's insurance company is claiming damages directly from you.

Get an affidavit stating you weren't the driver, and I suggest you get a lawyer too, unless you want to fight the claim yourself.

The problem is. If you gonna successfully fight the claim. You will need to throw your cousin under the bus. You will need to prove you didn’t give permission using your car directly or indirectly. If you not willing to lay criminal charges that your car was stolen you will be indirectly giving your cousin permission to use your car. Then they will go after your cousin and he will be 20k less richer with a criminal record. So that’s why people will just pay the 20k.

What’s worse then losing 20k? Losing 20k and getting a criminal record.

 

[Craig_]

The problem is. If you gonna successfully fight the claim. You will need to throw your cousin under the bus. You will need to prove you didn’t give permission using your car directly or indirectly. If you not willing to lay criminal charges that your car was stolen you will be indirectly giving your cousin permission to use your car. Then they will go after your cousin and he will be 20k less richer with a criminal record. So that’s why people will just pay the 20k.

What’s worse then losing 20k? Losing 20k and getting a criminal record.

This sounds like horseshit no offense meant. Go do an affidavit at the police station saying that you didn't use the car on the date in question, your cousin did. If he did cause crap he should be liable, not you.

 

[Nobody Important]

They cannot hold you responsible if you were not the driver. A person commits an offence not the owner of the car (like a speeding ticket is sent to the owner who can advise if he was not the driver). But as @beefymoocow said, you will have to throw your cousin under the bus (by telling them he was the driver). If you do not and they have footage of your car being involved, then the assumption is that you were driving.

 

[Nobody Important]

This sounds like horseshit no offense meant. Go do an affidavit at the police station saying that you didn't use the car on the date in question, your cousin did. If he did cause crap he should be liable, not you.

Exactly.

 

[genetic]

The problem is. If you gonna successfully fight the claim. You will need to throw your cousin under the bus. You will need to prove you didn’t give permission using your car directly or indirectly. If you not willing to lay criminal charges that your car was stolen you will be indirectly giving your cousin permission to use your car. Then they will go after your cousin and he will be 20k less richer with a criminal record. So that’s why people will just pay the 20k.

What’s worse then losing 20k? Losing 20k and getting a criminal record.

Rubbish, this is not a criminal case - it's civil.

 

[NeedAChange]

Thanks for the responses so far.

 

[supersunbird]

They cannot hold you responsible if you were not the driver. A person commits an offence not the owner of the car (like a speeding ticket is sent to the owner who can advise if he was not the driver). But as @beefymoocow said, you will have to throw your cousin under the bus (by telling them he was the driver). If you do not and they have footage of your car being involved, then the assumption is that you were driving.

I agree with this post.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Thanks for the responses so far.

What insurance do you have?

 

[R13...]

What insurance do you have?

Maybe he doesn't have. Otherwise his insurance would have covered, unless the cousin drove the car without permission.

 

[NeedAChange]

There was no insurance at the time

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

There was no insurance at the time

Why was your car on the road without any insurance?

 

[supersunbird]

Why was your car on the road without any insurance?

Because there is no law against it...

 

[Big Rat]

There should be though.
Nothing as frustrating as being involved in accident and the person who caused it says 'sorry, no insurance', with that kind of smirk you just want to wipe of his face.

 

[supersunbird]

There should be though.
Nothing as frustrating as being involved in accident and the person who caused it says 'sorry, no insurance', with that kind of smirk you just want to wipe of his face.

And your insurance will bother that smirk off their face, as they have done with mokhalid/his cousin.

 

[Big Rat]

And your insurance will bother that smirk off their face, as they have done with mokhalid/his cousin.

In the past not so much. Lately they are stepping up on getting their pound of meat back yes.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Because there is no law against it...

Did you forget the sarcasm font?

 

[supersunbird]

Did you forget the sarcasm font?

No. There is truly no law that prevents it, so he was legally entitled to be on the road without insurance, just common sense to have insurance, but it's not that common unlike it purports to be given it's name.