i am confused. i had an accident with my bike. explained the situation over the phone to the 3 insurers(?)(1 broker and 2 companies-already slightly confusing me) and next thing i know i receive a letter from fletchers solicitors asking for authority to act. they say i have 2 choices- 1. utilise my comprehensive insurance and my insurer pays for damage and chase 3rd party for the excess or 2. chase the 3rd party for cost to repair the bike plus excess. whilst deciding what to do, i received a letter from solicitors to say 3rd party has accepted liability. to me it sounds like i should select option 2 so my insurance not affected but my question is whats the point of comprehensive insurance- i didnt think it was an OR situation ,i thought it was an AND situation, err what im trying to say is i thought with comprehensive insurance, the insurers chase the 3rd party if they are at fault and if that doesnt work, my comprehensive covers me. i am confused. please help me. i am wondering why i took comprehensive cover if i have to decide whether or not to use it?
(jfi both the insurance company and solicitors are being helpful, just i feel i need advice from someone on the outside lol)
MCE-Had an accident confused
Posts 2 | Views 34
OK, from the info you have provided I take it that you were not at fault. That's a good start.
Your insurer will sort out the repairs to your machine and recover this from the third party's underwriter. Your legal cover is ther to handle your claim for extras such as your excess and compensation for any injuries and kit that was damaged etc.
The lawyers have not been honest with you in that you do not have to use their legal services to handle your claim. (There ARE more than two choices) You can use a lawyer of your choice and it is often best to do so as most of the time the guys appointed by your insurers are not very good. (They are selected on how much they pay for your case rather than their how good they are)