It is an interesting point. As you cannot be insured twice once the caravan is hitched to the car the third party/public liability component of the insurance passes from caravan insurer to car insurer.
If the accident was caused by caravan detaching as the outfit pulled out of the drive then I would have thought the car insurance would cover the third party losses as caravan detaching during accident should be regarded as no different from any other part of car ie roof box or wheel detaching & causing damage to third party property.
However if car insurer tries to refuse cover as caravan was away from car when caravan caused the damage then it would be covered by caravan insurance anyway provided Stu had insured his caravan so it would be for car & caravan to decide this among themselves but in any case Stu should be covered.
Stu should send any letters sent to him by neighbour’s home insurance to either his car or caravan insurer once he has established who his caravan was covered by at time of accident.
Quote: Originally posted by billy on 12/5/2020
I should also add that even if your caravan is not insured it is still covered for third party risks when hitched to your car as your car insurance covers this. If this happened as you moved off with car & caravan then I would have thought your car insurance would cover it. In fact your caravan insurance will state that third party liability passes from caravan insurer to car insurer when hitched to car.
Then, they could equally argue that the caravan was never "hitched" to the car, the whole reason being it was not correctly secured and free to roll away!
For the record I had not insured the caravan. We were not being cheap, it hadn't really occurred to me because it was not valuable. I NOW know there are other more important reasons to have insurance!!!
Additionally my neighbours house insurance contacted our car insurance and they say I am not covered for this incident.
You need to speak to your car insurance yourself. If the caravan was towed out of your drive behind car & then became detached then it was a road traffic accident. It is normal for insurers to try to get out of claims. You need to negotiate & you need to be firm. Speak to somebody from the claims department.
Quote: Originally posted by Ancient Uncle on 01/5/2020
Quote: Originally posted by tango55 on 01/5/2020
Quote: Originally posted by richardandjo2010 on 01/5/2020
I don't know if this applies to your hitch but with the Alko ones some towballs are too shallow to enable the hitch to sit fully home, these are usually the bolt on type of balls, if you don't have the swan neck type on your car maybe this is the reason why it fell off.
The type of towball you are referring to is called a flange towball which is mounted via 2 x 16mm. nuts and bolts which is the same as mine but strictly has to be an AL-KO type flange towball to allow the greater distance from the bumper plus it has a deeper undercut directly under the ball to accommodate the stabiliser hitch so it doesn't have to be a swan neck type by any means. However, it's a valid point that you raise because if the OP is using a standard type flange towball with a stabiliser hitch then the caravan WILL definitely disengage when it starts to pivot.
Which is why we had a discussion with the tow bar fitter to ensure we had the correct type. Which is a swan neck anyway. I willingly admit, when ours came adrift it was purely carelessness while we were being hassled.
The Winterhoff does not need a different type of tow ball.
What neighbour’s insurer has to do is prove Stu was negligent in order to recover their losses from him. To do this they will have to prove Stu failed to couple caravan properly rather than hitch being faulty. Just owning the caravan does not make him automatically liable. Liability needs to be proved. The only way this could be achieved is for independent checks to be carried out on hitch. So one engineer’s report paid for by Stu & one paid for by neighbour’s insurer & the results could still be inconclusive.
Of course Stu is free to sell the caravan tomorrow if he wants then nothing can be proved. When insurers pursue cases that ultimately could end up in court normally for a claim of the size I would guess this one is they give up before going to the expense of briefing lawyers.
Nasty letters cost nothing. Court action does.
Stu should still press his car insurer to take responsibility though.