In a Car Crash, Other Driver at Fault - They Want Me to Lie to My Insurer to Make Sure They Cover It. What Should I Do?

Lhrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:14

Hey OBs! Long time lurker, first time car-crash poster (think it's required you post a car incident for your first post?).

ASCII diagram of collision:

          |       |
          |       |
———        ————
                <— Me, green light
———        ————
          |   ^  |
          |       |
        Her, red light

I got T-boned at low speeds in an intersection when another driver ran a red - both cars are written off. I'm definitely not at fault, have witnesses, no worries with that. I have 3rd Party Fire/Theft and the other driver kind of has Comprehensive. They're being co-operative except for one thing.

They want to say it was their mum driving the car because it's insured under her name!

I don't want to lie to my insurer but I'm worried if I tell the truth, the other driver's insurance won't cover the cost.

Has anyone been in this position before? I'm thinking I can just say I only got the other driver's phone number and lie by omission?

On a side note, another driver's dashcam was on but only saved the aftermath because it deletes old recordings, or
there's some kind of 1min recording interval? Definitely getting a dashcam after this, but if that's how they work what's the point?

Automotive Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • leiiv on 16/11/2022 - 12:59
    +4

    OP you asked the wrong question. In the interest of your self interest, you should have asked: Is there any difference in difficulty of getting a pay between being hit by uninsured driver vs being hit by insured driver, and why?
    Now everyone just focuses on the insurance fraud instead of your own interest.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 01:59

      But focusing on the fraud aspect IS focusing on the OP's interests. There's no point getting your car repairs paid for, only to wind up in gaol or paying even more than the repairs cost, in fines. Better off losing the money. However that won't happen, because the OP is insured. That is…

      If the other car was insured, but DRIVER was UNLICENSED (not uninsured) the OP lying for them doesn't help the OP's interests because the mother was there TOO. So the mother is responsible for checking the driver of her car has a valid license. Either way her CAR is what is insured. So either the mother, or the mother's insurance company, is responsible for the OP's repairs, which the OP's insurer will chase one or other for.

      And if the mother's CAR (not driver) is UNINSURED, neither of them should have been driving it. So lying for them doesn't help the OP in that situation either. The mother will have no responsibility to pay for the OP's repairs, because her unlicensed driver chose to drive an uninsured and probably unregistered car. Who was driving doesn't matter now. The driver might be fined by police for being unlicensed, but again, the OP's insurer will pay for the OP's repairs then chase the mother/driver of the other car.

      • leiiv on 17/11/2022 - 09:27

        Read again, OP is uninsured. He only has 3rd Party Fire/Theft.
        I don't think he needs to report to anyone and may only need to tell the truth in a court when it comes to worst.

  • Drakesy on 16/11/2022 - 13:00

    i think we all know the answer to this.

    • leiiv on 16/11/2022 - 13:38

      Yes, the fact that almost no one mentioned about what the consequences for OP is pretty clear. No one wants to advise for insurance fraud. But everyone knows that if the other driver's insurance is void, OP will have a long and difficult way to get the payment for his/her car from the other party: legal battles, qcat, court orders, etc. I guess there is a big chance that OP will not get any money at all.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 02:05
        +1

        Why does everyone keep using the language "the other driver not insured" … Drivers don't "get insured", vehicles do. All that matters from the OP's perspective is the other driver is identified and is LICENSED (not "insured"). The OP's insurance company then recovers costs from the other insurer or driver.

        • leiiv on 17/11/2022 - 09:17
          +1

          Read again. OP only has 3rd Party Fire/Theft. He needs to "recover" the costs from the other party by him self.

          • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 13:29
            -1

            @leiiv: Well ok, but it doesn't change the fact it's not the driver that gets insured. It's the car/s that get insured.

    • BewareOfThe Dog on 16/11/2022 - 15:03
      +1

      Bikies?

  • LanceVance on 16/11/2022 - 13:02
    +2

    Having previously worked in Insurance I must insist you tell the truth. If you are not at fault and this has been established then you will not incur any costs. It is your insurance company's problem, it is their responsibility to recover their costs, if the other insurance company disputes who was driving it is THEIR problem, not yours. As another note, don't lie and let these individuals get away with this fraud. They should learn their lesson and accept responsibility for damaging your car and putting your life at risk.

    Let your insurance company handle it, give them an honest and factual statement and then if the person who hit you contacts you provide them with your claim number and insurance company details and you have no obligation to talk to them any longer.

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 13:13

      Is this still the case if I only have 3rd party insurance? Will I get the cost of my car paid out?

      • coffeeinmyveins on 16/11/2022 - 13:21
        +1

        Will I get the cost of my car paid out?

        Not from YOUR insurer since you don't have comprehensive, which is literally what this is for.

        I hope you didn't have a nice car.

        • JDMcarfan on 16/11/2022 - 13:45

          not always the case. Have had NAF claims processed (NRMA) when on TPPT (as an at the time 20yr old as well)

        • USER DC on 16/11/2022 - 14:02

          Not from YOUR insurer since you don't have comprehensive, which is literally what this is for.

          even that comprehensive insurance would have required OP to pay excess. even though not his fault

          • andresampras on 16/11/2022 - 14:07

            @USER DC: eh why?

            • USER DC on 16/11/2022 - 14:08

              @andresampras: insurance companies always wants $$ from the person who has taken insurance and want to make a claim.

              • andresampras on 16/11/2022 - 14:09
                +1

                @USER DC: sure but if the policy holder isn't at fault (and can provide sufficient details of the offender), they don't pay excess.

                • kerfuffle on 16/11/2022 - 14:45
                  +1

                  @andresampras: I provided sufficient details of the offender. Offender disputed they were at fault so had to pay excess. Excess got refunded five months later when they determined I wasn't at fault after all.

                  • andresampras on 16/11/2022 - 14:55
                    -1

                    @kerfuffle: not sure what your point is.

                    • kerfuffle on 16/11/2022 - 15:29
                      -1

                      @andresampras: That even if you're not at fault, you still have to pay the excess at times.

                      • andresampras on 16/11/2022 - 15:56
                        -2

                        @kerfuffle: I did say 'if you are not at fault'….and from the insurer's viewpoint this was not clear in your case, that's why you paid the excess temporarily. And you did get it back once they were satisfied you weren't at fault, so you're not out of pocket.

                        So simply saying 'you have to pay the excess' is misleading, without context.

                        FWIW I've had several NAF accidents (my car seems to attract them, sad) whilst being insured by a few different insurers. I've never had to pay any excess, even temporarily…because I was able to prove from the outset (witness / police statement / dashcam footage) that I wasn't at fault.

                      • jatyap on 19/11/2022 - 01:00

                        @kerfuffle: Probably depends on the insurer. RAC (WA) does not do that. As soon as your claim is proven to be no-fault, the excess gets waived straight away.

                        You don't need to pay and get it refunded later.

          • AEKaBeer on 18/11/2022 - 07:46

            @USER DC: Where they are not at fault the excess will be returned.

      • LanceVance on 16/11/2022 - 13:30
        +3

        Depends on your policy, some insurers will go to bat on your behalf if you're not at fault with a 3rd party policy… this is where you need to get familiar with your PDS. I recommend that you just phone your insurer and tell them everything that happened including that those at fault are asking you to participate in fraud.

        • Ridiculous Panda on 16/11/2022 - 15:09
          +3

          NO NO NO Just NO.. if their insurance is void because of attempted fraud, the OP will have to forget about getting any money back at least not before a long exhausting battle.
          Just tell the truth without offering extra information you weren’t asked for.

        • stumo on 17/11/2022 - 10:31

          Yep RACV was like that for me in a clear cut NAF accident. The joke is that if you have fully comp in a NAF accident, your insurer only covers you to what you have on YOUR policy, including hire car. Instead of going after the perps insurer on your behalf to make you whole. RACV basically told me to take my $4k agreed value, or I'm on my own.

          The supreme irony was that I would have been better off with RACV third party. In which case RACV would have chased the perps insurer for me, and got me the $7k repair costs, rather than their silly $4k agreed value offer. I had to chase the perp myself, but I cunningly waited until RACV had done all the paperwork first.

  • Meho2026 on 16/11/2022 - 13:03
    +7

    Tell the truth about who was driving but dont mention that the other driver asked you to lie.

    • HelpMeiCantSee on 17/11/2022 - 09:29

      I absolutely would note on the claim that the other driver asked you to lie. F them.

  • Fredfloresjr on 16/11/2022 - 13:09

    If the mum's name is Kris Jenner then go for it. Worth the lies.

  • coffeeinmyveins on 16/11/2022 - 13:11
    +3

    What Should I Do?

    Tell the truth to your insurance company and then go back to primary school because you've clearly failed at life if you have to literally post to a forum to ask if you should commit INSURANCE FRAUD

  • star-ggg on 16/11/2022 - 13:12

    She is probably under 25 and they didn't want to pay extra putting her on the policy. This would void their policy for this accident.

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 13:16

      What does it mean for me if it's void and I only have 3rd party insurance? I don't get anything?

        • vorsprung on 16/11/2022 - 13:23
          +4

          Third party fire and theft is what OP has, and it would cover the Ferrari in your example.
          When I was 17, full comprehensive was ridiculously expensive. 3x the price of third party fire and theft. When you're driving around a car worth $3000 (like I was) it just doesn't make sense.

        • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 13:25

          "Third Party Car Insurance offers cover for damage caused to someone else’s vehicle or property, if you’re liable for it"

          3rd party covers damage to someone else's Ferrari - comprehensive just also covers my Ferrari, right?

        • star-ggg on 16/11/2022 - 13:25

          Third Party Property Damage Insurance provides cover for damage you cause to other people's cars and property while using your car. It does not cover damage caused to your own car or injury you cause to other people

          If your car isn't worth much then only having 3rd party is fine if you're happy to do the legwork in cases like the OP's.

          • coffeeinmyveins on 16/11/2022 - 13:28
            -1

            @star-ggg:

            Third Party Property Damage

            Cool, but where did OP state that they have TPPD? AFAIK they said they only have CTP unless "3rd party insurance" is what you're basing this off.

      • star-ggg on 16/11/2022 - 13:22
        +1

        If it's void then their insurance will do absolutely nothing for them and you will have to pursue them yourself for the cost of the car

      • mrvaluepack on 17/11/2022 - 09:04
        +1

        Yes, you might not get anything because you only have third party. And then you'll have to go to small claims court to try and recover any money. Better to just say it was the mum. Too many ethical keyboard warriors on ozbargain telling you to do the 'right' thing but it might not be the best thing for your situation.

    • Muzeeb on 16/11/2022 - 13:37
      +2

      This would void their policy for this accident.

      It would only be void if the policy strictly states no drivers under xx. Most insurance companies just charge additional excess if the driver is not nominated.

      For example my RACV Comp policy has additional excess for age and number of years driving experience.

  • vorsprung on 16/11/2022 - 13:30
    +1

    I just wouldn't do it…
    Regardless, you've just posted your dilemma on a very public forum. Anyone could be reading this. Police. People who work for the insurance company in question.

    • leiiv on 16/11/2022 - 13:46

      Exactly, it is in their best interests to just delete the post..

  • vorsprung on 16/11/2022 - 13:38
    +1

    @hrayn3 have you checked if your 3rd party insurance covers anything against uninsured motorists?
    I don't know how much your car is worth, but RACQ for example cover up to $5000 for your car if you are in an accident and the third party at fault is uninsured. I don't know if this waives your rights to pursue the 3rd party for the full cost of the car (because your insurance company would be chasing them I assume).

  • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 13:39
    +2

    Thanks everyone! Like someone suggested, a better question would have been: what will happen if the other party is not insured because the car is in their parents name, they're at fault, and I have 3rd party insurance only?

    Sounds like:
    - My insurer won't help me (due to not having comprehensive)
    - I need to contact their insurer with a claim + all details I have
    - One thing I'm still unsure of: I should be able to recover the cost of my car from the other party whether or not they're insured/parent insured/car insured - ideally via their insurer, but otherwise through court?
    - I can potentially recover some amount if the other driver is uninsured from my insurer depending on the policy I have

    p.s. There will be no fraud on my behalf whatsoever

    • tsunamisurfer on 16/11/2022 - 14:04
      +2

      This is where I see this as a thinly veiled threat from the other party.

      If you don't lie for me, then I am essentially uncovered, which means you have to chase me yourself.

      What we don't know is whether the other driver has been nominated as a regular driver. If Yes, I suspect the other party is just trying to save money on the excess payment (mum's excess vs young driver excess).

      If they are not nominated as a driver they may not be covered, which is a problem for you. But the insurance policies I have seen actually allow for un-nominated drivers to drive that car about 3 times a year albeit with max excess.

    • ol mate on 16/11/2022 - 14:31

      Some (most?) TPP policies include a uninsured motorist benefit - they'll pay up to a certain amount ($5k is the most common I've seen) where the other party is not insured. If the other party has a claim denied then you'd be entitled to that at the very least.

      Given your car is worth more than $5k, you'd end up pursuing the driver through court - letter of demand followed by a trip to V/Q/NCAT or equivalent in your state/territory.

      • Herbse on 16/11/2022 - 15:33
        -1

        The other parties insurer will tell you that the accident has nothing to do with them since the driver was not listed on the policy

        Your best course is to request payment from the other party and start looking into the costs of lawyers vs the cost of repair and if it's worth pursuing

        All the best

  • Murkymerv on 16/11/2022 - 13:42

    Don't lie to insurance!

  • Belv on 16/11/2022 - 13:45
    +2

    even if they are not nominated under insurance, I think they are still covered but the excess they will pay will be more, I think there is more to the story eg , possibly not having a licence

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 13:46

      They were a P plater, hard to tell the age but I would say mid-20s - maybe they just want to avoid a higher excess?

    • ol mate on 16/11/2022 - 14:34

      Very dependent on policy.

      Some insurers won't touch anyone not listed if they are at the same address (anything Auto & General, or more commonly known as by their main brand - Budget Direct). Others won't touch drivers under a certain age on their policies (e.g. I just got a QBE policy via Auspost, and they don't cover any <25 at all for the car due to it being considered "high performance")

      • Euphemistic on 16/11/2022 - 15:33

        This. I had budget direct comprehensive. They would not cover anyone not listed on the policy from the same address. I opted not to renew as when I added a young new driver the premium went up - a lot. I’ve switched company and everyone is covered, listed or not. Now I’ll just have to pay an additional excess rather than not being covered. The young driver will only drive the car very rarely, like once or twice a year.

  • tsunamisurfer on 16/11/2022 - 14:05

    Do not lie, tell them that you already have submitted the police report.

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 14:06

      The police showed up but said they wouldn't file a report because no-one had been drinking. Thought it was odd because the other driver ran a red - so there was a crime. Didn't feel i could argue it at the moment but in hindsight seems weird?

      • andresampras on 16/11/2022 - 14:11

        running a red is a traffic offense, I don't think it's a crime.

        …but I'm no legal expert so I could be wrong.

      • tsunamisurfer on 16/11/2022 - 14:14

        I don't know what the rules are in your area.

        In WA you need to fill in a police report if the damage from the accident exceeds $3k.

      • GOMOOTYPRO on 16/11/2022 - 17:01

        From my knowledge, police will only take statements etc if a car is towed, drink driving or someone is injured

      • Poor Ass on 17/11/2022 - 02:01

        Cops don't come most times unless as everyone says lots of damage, injuries or drinking.

        First to come are always the tow truck drivers.. absolute scum

        • johno3456 on 18/11/2022 - 22:35

          Cops can ticket them later. If they attend they can issue a ticket in the mail.

          • Poor Ass on 19/11/2022 - 00:29

            @johno3456: usually not because they need to witness it in person

            heck they can't even issue a ticket if you caught yourself running a red light on a dash cam

  • singlemalt72 on 16/11/2022 - 14:14
    +1

    You have their number, let them know you are telling the truth to allow them to not be caught in the lie that would probably invalidate their insurance (being nice).
    If the car is insured in her mothers name then it is still insured (as long as the driver is licenced), just with a likely hefty excess.

    100% not worth being any nicer thn this as if you lied and it were found out your own insurance would be at risk.

  • tomsco on 16/11/2022 - 14:19
    +2

    ASCII diagram of collision

    @mspaint is this acceptable?

  • apaul on 16/11/2022 - 14:34

    Don't lie. Tell the truth to insurer

  • Ridiculous Panda on 16/11/2022 - 15:17
    +3

    You reminded me of a somewhat embarrassing moment when I was young.. overseas before moving to Australia.
    Had an accident with a car that an unlicensed kid was driving.. kid cried for me to wait for his dad to arrive before calling the police (police had to attend any accident to write up a report).
    Dad arrived and pleaded for me to say he was driving so the kid doesn’t get in trouble. I agreed to it because i felt sorry for them and also wanted my car fixed.
    After the cop had arrived and i had told my side of the story, dad had a change of heart and decided to tell the truth!!!

    Moral of the story: don’t lie.

    • Guybrush57 on 16/11/2022 - 21:16

      Did anything happen to you after the cop learnt that you lied to them?

      • Ridiculous Panda on 16/11/2022 - 21:52

        Nah mate.. it is a 3rd world country. He was more impressed that the dad told the truth and let it all slide.

  • Herbse on 16/11/2022 - 15:29
    +2

    This will be interesting. It looks like the OP has taken the good advice mallard of ozbargain and will tell their insurance company the truth

    However if their policy states that third party policies aren't covered for uninsured, at fault drivers. Then OP will have just lost any chance of being covered.

  • Scantu on 16/11/2022 - 16:19
    +2

    Just say you don't know who was driving, that way 0 liability for you and increased chance of a frictionless payout.

    • Poor Ass on 17/11/2022 - 02:02
      -1

      Hahahahahahahahahahaha

      • Scantu on 17/11/2022 - 11:46

        whats funny?

        • Poor Ass on 17/11/2022 - 12:27

          increased chance of a frictionless payout

          that's what's funny

          you know that OP don't have comprehensive insurance and chasing up payment / dealing with compensation is all on them

          • Scantu on 17/11/2022 - 13:56

            @Poor Ass: Yes. I know that. So making the person's life who has to be paying you from their insurance's life easier making a claim, and more likely to receive claim money, whilst not telling an active lie - will increase their chance of a frictionless payout.

            hahahahahahahahahahaha

    • bobbified on 17/11/2022 - 15:28

      OP doesn't really need to say anything at all. They lodge the claim with their insurer with whatever description of the accident that says they're at fault. Once the claim is approved, OP goes to a smash repairer with the claim number and gets their car fixed. The repairer will bill the insurer directly.

      The only problem I see with this is if they put in their claim to say that the mother was driving and they get busted, their policy will be voided, leaving them uninsured.

      If that happens, OP has two choices: Either seek recovery from them personally (which would be a pain in the ass) or, if his Third Party Property Damage policy has limited cover (usually $3000-5000 max) where he can provide the details of the at-fault AND uninsured driver, lodge a claim with his own insurer.

  • Rhubarb Jones on 16/11/2022 - 17:12

    IMHO this what you will need to do:

    Check with your insurer if they will manage a claim on your behalf (unlikely, because you don't have full comp). If they do, great, lodge the claim.

    If they don't:
    Find out the repair cost of your car (get 2-3 quotes)
    If it cannot be repaired get that in writing and then learn the car markets value (https://www.redbook.com.au/ can be good for this)
    You can add additional costs such as towing and car rental
    If you scrap the car for $$$ this amount is taken from what you can demand.

    I.e You total demand value = market value of car + towing costs + 5 days car rental - scrap paid.

    Next send a Letter of Demand for the value you've calculated above. Consult Google, a friend with a legal background or some legal savviness.

    If they don't pay by your due date (outlined in your letter of demand) you'll need to commence a claim in court.

    Alternatively you can engage a solicitor to act for you to conduct the process above. If your car is worth $10k and your total loss is similar to that amount it would probably be worth while using the services of a legal expert especially if you're not confident of managing the process yourself (and a letter of demand on a lawyers letterhead often just holds more weight for what that is worth).

    Good luck, keep a clear head and you should be fine with recovery your loss.

  • love2buy on 16/11/2022 - 17:20

    If not listed driver, insurance still covers but with extra premium on-top from my understanding. So just tell the truth. Not worth lying.

  • gromit on 16/11/2022 - 17:28

    being complicit in a crime with a 3rd party you don't even know should ring alarm bells everywhere for you, it can end very badly. What if they grow a conscience and admit it (they are throwing you under the bus too), what if someone else reports it or the insurer finds out through other means. Why risk criminal charges for someone you don't know even if that means more insurance hassle.

  • logistics on 16/11/2022 - 17:52
    +1

    I was in the same position many years ago.
    I took a photo of both their licences, reported it to my insurance provider and what they were trying to do.

    No idea what the end result was on their side. I dont bother contacting the other party. Thats why I pay an Insurance premium.

  • Willy Beamish on 16/11/2022 - 18:01

    Their insurance is not your problem.

    Just tell the truth.

  • PlaunsJanus on 16/11/2022 - 18:07
    -4

    I recently hit at about 8km/h
    I did not have insurance of any kind.
    I could've asked him to change the date of the accident after getting insurance coverage
    I'm 100% sure he would've lied if I asked him to with a cash incentive.

    Nothing wrong with anyone doing that in my opinion, but personally I would never ask someone else to make a false statement.

    Cost me $7000 and I still feel terrible about inconveniencing the poor guy.

    Don't feel bad for telling the truth and don't be dishonest for someone else's sake unless it is life or death.

    • Guybrush57 on 16/11/2022 - 21:17
      +3

      You could afford a cash incentive for the victim and $7000 for repairs yet you couldn't afford insurance?

      • Scantu on 17/11/2022 - 16:00

        That's not really that unrealistic… I definitely have enough $ to offer a cash incentive and cover repairs, and I don't have comprehensive insurance…

    • gromit on 16/11/2022 - 22:14
      +2

      Nothing wrong with anyone doing that in my opinion, but personally I would never ask someone else to make a false statement.

      Really you see nothing wrong with asking someone to commit a crime on your behalf?

      • PlaunsJanus on 17/11/2022 - 20:38
        -1

        It's a crime to
        - fail to display L plates,
        - To notify change of address
        - Incest
        - Intentionally cause a vehicle to lose traction… (first thing I do in an unfamiliar vehicle is emergency brake in the wet, in a safe area)
        - Land owner Fails to Comply With Any Planning Scheme

        Lots of laws are criminal offences
        … "Hey I don't have L plates but could you say they were attached when we left and must have fallen off after we left"… is sort of the thing I'm pointing to

        Ends up in being charged with a criminal offence and may be taken to court.

        I wouldnt care if you ask your cousin to keep quiet about the incest either

        • gromit on 18/11/2022 - 06:44

          you are comparing minor infringements (for the most part) to something that carries serious life consequences or even gaol time if you are caught. That is like comparing a speeding ticket to being caught for armed robbery.

          • PlaunsJanus on 18/11/2022 - 19:52

            @gromit: No. These are actually criminal offences

            • gromit on 18/11/2022 - 20:53
              +1

              @PlaunsJanus: So is murder and littering. The difference is one will see u almost certainly criminally prosecuted if caught while the other will probably result in a fine without criminal record. Similarly insurance fraud will almost certainly see u criminally prosecuted as it is taken very seriously.

              • PlaunsJanus on 21/11/2022 - 16:45

                @gromit: I detest littering. If I find rubbish I usually put it in the bin. I would report some for dumping rubbish or littering from a vehicle.

                I would report a murder but not someone being wilfully euthanized.

                I wouldn't report an insurance fraud. Or any other kind unless I was being petty.

                I'm sure choosing which crimes I report is a crime in itself. Other than that, I keep my nose clean.

  • Dreamcast on 16/11/2022 - 18:54

    068 111 110 039 116 032 108 105 101

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join