I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. Sorry for the long post.
Someone (u18) I know didn't see a car at a crossroads where they were to give way, and cycled into it. The child was upset and left the scene as soon as possible, but luckily the car and witnesses stopped and swapped details. The child had a bruised elbow and later a stiff neck, but the bike was Ok after minor repairs and the child recovered within a few days. The car's wing was damaged and, apparently, grill and fog light. The driver reported that they can get it repaired for £1400, and gave this family the choice of going through the driver's car insurance or personal liability under Contents part of the cyclist's home insurance. It is dangerous to discuss fault in such a situation, especially when live, but the child simply didn't see the car which by all accounts was not speeding (the driver thought the car may even have been stationary upon impact, but the child doubts this), but we are all mindful aren't we of the hierarchy of vulnerable road users and a motorist's obligation to be able to stop.
My question to you: is there something I've overlooked when deciding this?
Driver's car insurance: repair would be through one of the insurer's repairers, probably therefore more; driver's premium would increase (slight schadenfreude admittedly but this person presented the family with the repair quote the same day before even asking how the child was); but is there a possibility of the car insurance pursuing the cyclist, which would be unpleasant and disproportionate - they are bound to, aren't they? Inevitably there would follow a fight about fault, where it does seem to be in the driver's favour. Would the home insurance company resist paying to the cyclist because of perceived fault, landing the cyclist family with both a larger bill and having had to deal with a car insurance firm?
Home insurance personal liability: reduced sum on payout; no pursuit of cyclist by car insurance; but cyclist cannot accept a sum to pay and then claim that against home insurance without home insurance agreeing first, which they might resist because they've essentially been presented with a privately agreed bill.
Clearly the home insurance company decide which route, but the family is trying to fully assess the issues first, and the home insurance is very difficult to get through to by phone thus far (online product, constantly on hold when phoned, and starting a new claim process requires an amount to be claimed, which won't exist until this is decided -chicken and egg).
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.