Talked to a friend that deals with this and he agrees that you are 100% at fault. The way you describe it your wife can see you hooking up the trailer so there is no reason for her to assume you left the door open and created a hazard. Also a car door left open for no reason is almost always at fault.
If you had shut the door the door no damage would have occured.
Sorry I perhaps read too quickly; if the claim is purely for the damage to the car I canât see why you couldnât claim. Do you have all inclusive cover?
Well I hope your friend is an expert but either way he is completely wrong!!
I donât know if he is an expert but your insurance company seems to agree. Is there a reason the door wasnât closed?
The issue isnât the insurance paying. It is them finding him at fault and then having a rise in premiums.
I can understand why an insurance company would refuse to pay out on damage that was covered by another close family member especially if the damage was caused by a car with a protected NCB. I had a car with bad cosmetic on the passenger door. It would have been suspicious if a close relation just happened to run into it so I could claim against their insurance.
Thanks for your comments but itâs not a question of not paying out, they will pay out. Itâs a question of whose policy accepts the liability.
If incidents on private land are covered, I could still see circumstances where slope of the drive or other obscuring or complicating factors might make an open car door - that perhaps had been standing open while someone did work in or around the car or took loads to or from it - not seen by the driver whose fault it was, till too late.
As a cyclist whoâs even had to perform a tumble roll over an opening truck door because the only way to avoid it was to go over it, scraping the paint of my abandoned bike and my knees, landiing on London EC4 tarmac and ruining a pair of Wolford tights in the process, I agree that on a public road or place itâs fair that the party who opened the door should automatically be guilty.
But on private land and especially if door was standing open already and not just opened in the approaching driverâs face Iâd check road law and policy carefully to see if the same default assumption can be made on private land.
I believe that (at all times) the Car should not present a hazard nor be subjected to avoidable hazard.
Easy to be wise after the event ⌠but, there it is. Something for us all to think about 
Just edited the thread title 
Excellent point Karen. Thank you , thats exactly what I am doing.
I always thought a driver should not go round a bend or drive at a speed without being able to brake to avoid an obstacle which presents itself or a car braking ahead? What if the dog had been lying in the driveway? Or a child playing?
And surely the hazard is a car door suddenly opened in the path of an approaching vehicle / cyclist - not one which is already open and therefore can be anticipated.
Excess speed and / or driving without due care and attention might be the problem here, not a stationary car with door already open?
Otherwise itâs open season on anyone unloading the shopping 
I agree. The moving vehicle has to be at fault.
Twas always thus! On renewal a new contract is started to which any NCD is applied. If the premium is considered too expensive there are other companies who may quote lower to which your NCD will be applied.
My insurer provides a NCD table which shows how the NCD reduces according to how long itâs been held. In fact, a long held NCD thatâs reduced by a claim may not be appropriate when compared to the extra premium that a NCD incurs.
Doesnt that depend on the angle of the open door, square on, no excuse, edge on, easily missed.
Easily missed doesnât change the person at fault. If a moving car hits a vehicle stationary in a driveway how can anybody but the driver be at fault?
Husband definitely at fault. Shouldnât have parked it there in the first place!
Of course - obvious. Really no need for further discussion.
Bet he leaves the toilet seat up as well 
Axa just love rejecting claims for petty reasons. I had a very nasty burglary where I was drugged by being sprayed through an open bedroom window with a mixture of fentanyl and GHB (the gang were caught in the act a few weeks later, by a silent alarm and the Russian military drugs they were using were identified). Axa refused to pay out because the bars on my window were 19cm apart whereas their required standard (on page 256 of their terms and conditions) was 17cm.