Hi,

A friend of mine was driving down the motorway when the bike rack came off the car onto the motorway. Several cars avoided the bikerack/bikes on the road apart from one car that hit them. luckily this happened late sunday evening on the slow lane so there was little trafic. They stopped immediately and exchanged tel numbers with the chap whose car had been damaged. highway patrol retrieved the bikes.

my friends car insurance company (person in call centre) says it’s not their problem. It’s a bike rack failure and therefore the actual car was not involved with the accident as they are two seperate entities at the time of the accident.

However i thought that as the bike rack was physically attached to the car, it becomes part of the car and subject to all the relevant highway code rules apply to it.

THe owner of car damaged by the bikerack/bikes is now trying to get some kind of claim from my friend.

Admitedly my friend could have had a fine and points for an unsecure load, but thats kind of irrelevant here.

Has anyone encountered this situation before?

Does my friend just day to the chap, speak to my car insurance company?
what if the car insurance company refuse to cover it, will my friend be liable for the damage?

Also i’m not sure that the person driving was paying enough due care and attention, all the other cars avoided them, but this one did not. Do they have a viable claim situation?

Also Personal liability insurance won’t cover it, as they say it’s a car insurance claim.

So, gratefull for any advice that I can give to my friend.

Cheers

Unsafe load, why wouldn’t that be covered?

Goes to check insurance policy…

If his policy won’t cover it he’ll have to fight them or pay.

He can fight with Insurers but they usually don’t take the piss.

How did the rack fail?

What make of rack, they do fail, as i found out a few years ago after one failed on the A55, a lorry ran over the bikes and punctured its tyres on pedal spindle, stuck in non moving traffic for an hour,while they sorted it.

Also depends on type of securing fixing , some cars hae plastic tailgates and strapping a few bikes on the back is going to breeak them, as is the glass parting from the car bodywork.

I don’t know how the rack failed, guessing the straps loosened off with the journey and popped off.

However I’m more interested in the compensation side of things. I thought my friends car insurance would have had to take the hit.

On the other hand the other chap should have been driving more carefully with a good stopping distance!

ho hum, this is going to keep me awake tonight!

Which insurer is it?

I don’t know how the rack failed, guessing the straps loosened off with the journey and popped off.

In which case your mate did not secure the load, he pays compensation.

im not 100 % sure, but dosnt it come under a modifed clause, there fore wont be covered unless ins have been informed etc, also digging out ins policy to check. hope he gets it sorted mate.

With the whole stopping distance thing, doesn’t it usually apply to the car in front applying it’s brakes, not to something falling off a car unexpectedly?
Like for instance those scaffolding lorries with no tailgate on them, i always give them a wee bit more distance if there’s one in front of me, but if a pole fell off I’m sure it’d stop quicker than the lorry would if it slammed on it’s brakes?

I’d guess with the insurers in the small print it would say that it’s the drivers responsibility to make sure any loads are properly secured and failure to do so would void the cover?

Fingers crossed he gets a result though.

The driver has the responsibility to check he /she has followed the instructions regarding the safe use and loading of the bike rack.

Also if something drops off a car it usually bounces around a bit, so very lucky the bikes didnt cause a major accident.

can’t believe your trying to blame the driver behind for not being able to avoid a bike and rack bouncing all over the place 🙄

I don’t see how the insurance company can claim they are not obliged to pay out.

Part of your insurance is public liability is it not? To protect other parties? A fully comp policy may refuse to pay out for damage to the policy holders car, but for damage to other vehicles, there should always be cover shouldn’t there?

Its like drink driving, exceeding your mileage limit etc etc, all benefits of the policy to the policy holder cease, but 3rd party cover remains doesn’t it?!

If he was towing a trailer and it had become detached because he failed to check everything before moving off, the trailer would still have its 3rd party cover as it bounced off other vehicles.

Like everybody else on here I know absolutely nothing about the facts but I’ll just spout some random opinion.

I think your mate’s in a bit of bother.

I once got behind a scaffolding truck on the motorway just as it started to drop its load all over the place.

Would you have suggested that somehow I might be to blame for any collision as I (and numerous other drivers on both sides of the motorway) swerved and braked trying to avoid being speared by poles and planks etc?

You’re not expected to leave your stopping distance between you and the car in front. Stopping distance at 70mph is (according to the book) 96m, but the “rule” is a 2s gap, which is only 62 meters.

In any event, if it’s deemed that your friend is liable, I believe his insurance must pay out. The insurance is required to provide at least the minimum cover required by the Road Traffic Act which is to:

“insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road”

Further, the act says, that there are certain matters that cannot be used to restrict the 3rd party liability, and these include:

“(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries”

and

“(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus”

So unless they’re arguing that it was the other driver’s fault for not avoiding it, I don’t see how they can argue that this accident was not the result of your friend’s use of his vehicle on a road.

There may be specific exclusions in the policy which mean that the insurance company may come after the driver for any amount paid out to the third party, but that doesn’t remove their obligation to pay the claim in the first place.

Tell the third party to get in contact your insurance company and let them get on with it. I strongly suspect that once the insurance companies start talking there will be no issue, but if they do decide to be sticky, ask them to put in writing, with reference to the RTA, why they won’t be honouring the claim.

I reckon that your friend’s insurance company “misunderstood” the question and thought they were being asked to pay for the bike.

Totally different scenario but conflicting insurance views again! Coupla yrs ago a roof tile fell off the house and speared straight through my van screen and dented the bonnet. House insurance were having none of it and told me to use the vehicles insurance!! However if the tile had hit a person who’d be liable then???

I suspect that the key point was that it was your van. Had it been someone else’s, your home insurance should probably have paid for your liability to that 3rd party.

Point 1 : the bike rack failure could be down to operator error and therefore your mate’s fault.
Point 2 : that shouldn’t invalidate any insurance claim. Most collisions are somebody’s fault (that’s why they’re not called accidents anymore) but are still covered by insurance. You are in effect not only insured against other drivers but also your own stupid mistakes.

(that’s why they’re not called accidents anymore)

Is that true, if so, I completely agree with the sentiment.

Would you have suggested that somehow I might be to blame for any collision as I (and numerous other drivers on both sides of the motorway) swerved and braked trying to avoid being speared by poles and planks etc?

Without more details and making the assumption, as you are indicating, that everyone was driving too close, then yes I would.
@ the OP, I would continue talking to the insurance company. If it was equipment failure try and find similar cases. If it was user error you’re mate’ll have to take it on the chin.

The insurere is likely to play the ‘modified’ card – if they didn’t know about the modification to the bodywork then he’s not entitled to cover. If he didn’t secure the load properly, then he’s broken the law and isn’t covered. If the bike rack failed, see first point then, action could be taken against the manufacturer but will need proof.

The chances of the insurer paying out are very very slim (used to work for one of them)

The insurere is likely to play the ‘modified’ card – if they didn’t know about the modification to the bodywork then he’s not entitled to cover. If he didn’t secure the load properly, then he’s broken the law and isn’t covered. If the bike rack failed, see first point then, action could be taken against the manufacturer but will need proof.

The chances of the insurer paying out are very very slim (used to work for one of them)

Sorry, but that’s utter bobbins.
The insurer will have to pay out on the 3rd party element – that’s what the RTA says. Doesn’t matter what the proximate cause is, and it’s up to the insurer if they want to persue whoever is responsible for the loss (for the sake of a 1k bodywork repair, they won’t bother).

The damage to the bikes & rack may or may not be covered. I suspect the owners would have to rely on a household – personal belongings policy for the bikes and some sort of car accessory cover under their car policy for the rack.

HTH

What rack was it?

can’t believe your trying to blame the driver behind for not being able to avoid a bike and rack bouncing all over the place

+1.

On the other hand the other chap should have been driving more carefully with a good stopping distance!

LOL!

I don’t see how the insurance company can claim they are not obliged to pay out.

This. Its ridiculous. The car was carrying something that became separated whilst the car was in operation/motion.

The only way I can see the insurance company getting out if they asked the question ‘was the car being driven in the fast lane’ – Do bike racks have a legal maximum speed limit etc? (Thats a question on ALL of this paragraph/thinking out loud).

On the other hand the other chap should have been driving more carefully with a good stopping distance!

I see so any following drivers are legally obliged to be able to avoid objects falling off cars in front bouncing around the road in some sort of real life video game? jeez 🙄

Here’s a thought for you, how do you stay a safe stopping distance behind a car that’s overtaking you in another lane?

On the avoiding bollocks. When something like a bike etc comes off the back of a vehicle you have no idea how it’ll bounce. After all things don’t come off a vehicle and immediately ‘sit’ on the motorway do they?

I was behind a Scaffolder’s open back truck and a kit bag fell off and ricocheted down the tarmac VERY quickly towards me. Luckily a slight swerve saved a smashed windscreen however what if I was in the middle lane and there was someone in the rightlane? Should I side-swipe them potentially causing their deaths?

BACK on subject to help the OP please.

All,

Thanks for the replies – please no more about the stopping distance, driving without due care and attention stuff- it’s mis leading – and I really don’t care that much about it! and its taking away from the point of whether the car insurance company will cough up.

Cheers

Agree, I’d recommend posting it here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&f=23&mid=70159

Wrightyson

It’s a question of liability.
If the roof was in A1 condition and the tile “just fell off” then your vehicle policy should respond.
If the roof was in a poorly maintained condition, or a storm forced the tile off then the household insurance could respond, depending on whether there are restrictions on paying for damage to your own property (your car).
Same goes for the tile hitting a passer-by, as a liability policy can only respond if you have been negligent.

Read pdw and my posts.

On the avoiding bollocks. When something like a bike etc comes off the back of a vehicle you have no idea how it’ll bounce. After all things don’t come off a vehicle and immediately ‘sit’ on the motorway do they?I was behind a Scaffolder’s open back truck and a kit bag fell off and ricocheted down the tarmac VERY quickly towards me

unless it was actually fired off the back of the truck, the bag & contents would have been moving forwards relative to the road, not coming “towards” you other than you’d have been catching them up as they slowed/stopped.

Closing speed?

PDW is spot on. The insurance company is liable. If they will not pay up may I suggest a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

As an aside whether you are negligent or not they cannot exclude any liability for personel injury, this holds for home insurance too. I.e. the tile falling onto a person example!

Closing speed?

Safe distance?

As above, covered by insurance – they’re just trying to get out of it. Phone them up and remind them of their responsibilities.

this holds for home insurance too. I.e. the tile falling onto a person example!

No. This would depend on there being a negligent act, whereas the road incident is covered under the RTA regardless.

As above, covered by insurance – they’re just trying to get out of it. Phone them up and remind them of their responsibilities.

Or better still, tell the 3rd party’s insurers to get in touch with your insurers and let them get on with it.

If they believe that your mate is liable then, under the RTA, his insurers get to pay.

As for whether there is a liability, it really depends on the circumstance. As per my previous post, the “two second gap” rule leaves less than your stopping distance, so if the bike fell off and came to an immediate stop, even a driver leaving a reasonable distance may not be able to avoid it. Similarly if it bounced into another lane, it may be impossible to avoid, even for someone driving reasonably.

On the other hand, if the next car was a minute behind you and failed to avoid an obvious and stationary object in the road, then they probably weren’t driving carefully. I’d guess that in that case they might split the blame.