Accident caused by uninsured driver - who pays excess?

Just a quick question please. My OH and I were hit by a car earlier today on a back country lane - basically we were crawling along up-hill (having pulled over to let 2 cars pass), and the other driver was driving in the middle of the road, coming downhill, way too fast on a bend after torrential rain. Thankfully no-one was hurt (he had a baby in a car seat in the back ( :rage:), but the gendarmes were called as the other driver had no insurance. Obviously now in the hands of the gendarmes, we have dashcam footage of the whole thing and the gendarmes will call us in a few days for us to present our documents etc. If the other driver is found to be at fault, and our insurance company agree to pay for the damange etc. to our car, do we still have to pay for the excess, even though its not our fault? Thanks for any advice and constructive comments in advance.

Why not ask the Insurance Company themselves? Make sure you let them have the dashcam footage. We had an accident and it was on the verge of being knock for knock till they saw the dashcam footage.

1 Like

Thanks for the advice David - will do.

Might be of some use

You don’t say if you are Fully Comp or Third Party.But there is in France a National Fund to cover losses caused by an uninsured driver. This link will explain it https://www.lesfurets.com/assurance-auto/guide/comment-etre-indemnise-suite-a-un-accident-cause-par-un-conducteur-non-assure#defaut-dassurance-quelle-indemnisation-pour-les-victimes

Thanks for the article Paul. We are fully comp. so will wait to see what happens.

We are fully comp. so will wait to see what happens.

If not at fault your insurance company should apply the excess except if you have a policy where they apply excess even if not at fault (this exists unfortunately). The fact that they don’t have insurance complexify the matter a bit so you’ll have to provide your insurance company with the Gendarme’s report to prove this. The footage from the dashcam is un-necessary and won’t be exploited by your insurance company (except if you go to trial).

Pro tip: In France we (insurers) at nothing but the drawing (on the constat) and the boxes that are checked. So you can write whatever you want they won’t even read it… so processing a dashcam footage I let you image how far away they are from that type of consideration :wink:

Fabien, I don’t understand this: “If not at fault your insurance company should apply the excess except if you have a policy where they apply excess even if not at fault

1] “If not at fault …they apply excess even if not at fault” Should a “not” be eliminated from one of these conditions? As it stands, both statements are saying the same thing.

2] "should apply the excess " … “a policy where they apply excess”. Does “apply” in this sense mean “charge” the excess - the policy holder must pay the excess?

By the way, I really like this new word you have introduced to the English language - I shall use it frequently from now on … “complexify” Because it is perfect for understanding much of the French way of life.

2 Likes

I think Fabien’s first “should” needs to be a “shouldn’t”, and I think his last paragraph should probably be

1 Like

Paul, thanks for 'de-complexifying’ this :grinning:

1 Like

In the UK if it is the other drivers fault then you would get paid everything from their insurer (if they are insured, obviously) and the excess on your policy does not actually come into it. If the driver is not insured then there are ways to get compensation (the Motor Insurance Bureau) and many comprehensive policies include cover for uninsured drivers as long as you get as many details as possible.

Ah! But here we are in La Belle France and things can get - will get … complexified! Fabien said it, so it must be so!

1 Like

Fabien . All I can say is that in my case when I had an accident, based on the Constat my Insurers told the repairing garage to apply the excess. After reviewing my dashcam footage that was changed and no fault on my part. Paul and I have both posted on here the links to the fund for losses from uninsured drivers.

1 Like

Thank you for your insight Fabien, very much appreciated.

That is very cool! A friend of mine also did one that I love ‘nextly’ :rofl:

It would be cool if Fabien or Tory’s friend had been the first to come up with these words, but …

Oh wow - and all us English speakers cracked up laughing (with him not at him - he was laughing too). We’d obviously never heard of it being a real word and I took it to be an (understandable error) in translating ‘prochainement’. Oops!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Is it maybe an American thing, there is an American word which I currently can’t remember that I use a lot as I feel it works very well but it drives the man shape mad (us Aussies are obviously not as ‘careful’ with such things!!!). ahhhhh just remembered - worrisome - I think it is a brilliant word!

And this is a brilliant song (and singer)

It seems that this word is not original to Fabian. However, dictionaries of academic weight cite it as an oddity, a corruption of, for example, complexity or complicate.

It’s history of usage seems to bear this out. Somebody uses it, not knowing it ‘doesn’t exist’, so for a while it does exist, then falls back into oblivion.
image

I’m going to credit Fabian with the rebirth of ‘comlexify’. Let’s get it really out there!

2 Likes