Taxi written off, full 3rd party liability, they won't cover ins costs of courtesy car

[Manxman in exile]

This might seem a stupid question, but can you confirm how you used your "hackney plated vehicle" that was written off?

Was it used solely for hire in plying your trade, or was it also used for personal use as a family car/or runaround/or for non-business social, domestic and pleasure use?

Did you have another vehicle available to you for family or other non-business use?  )

With hindsight, if the hackney was only used for trade, you might have been better off with insurance that provided cover for loss of income or profit rather than providing a replacement vehicle.  (Of course such cover might not be available as I suspect insurance companies make much more money by providing cedit hire vehicles rather than covering lost income or profit...  

[Manxman in exile]

@BankFodder  -  have you read the case?  I read it before I replied yesterday because I also thought that what the third party insurers were saying must be wrong.  But having read it, I can see why they would want to try and rely on it and that's why I asked the OP if the taxi was solely used for business purposes and also pointed out that he might have been better off buying insurance cover for loss of income rather than for a replacement vehicle.

My take on that case is that where the vehicle in question is a taxi used for trade, the third party is usually only liable to pay for loss of profit and not for the hire of a replacement vehicle.  And I suppose if you think about it, that makes sense.  If the taxi is only used for business then the owner's only quantifiable loss is loss of profit.

An exception to that general rule might be where the vehicle is also used for non-business purposes (as here) but that doesn't seem to be so clearcut since a subsequent case developed that argument. (See link below)

Another exception might be where the taxi owner's finances are such that he simply can't afford not to work, and is entitled to a hire vehicle and not just loss of profit.  But even that doesn't seem straightforward and courts seem to have looked in detail at financial standing

This analysis explains the situation better than I can:  Assessment of damages in taxi credit hire cases - building on Hussain v EUI - Lexology

If this accurately reflects the true position of the law (and I don't know if it does or not) then I can understand why the third party insurers think it relevant.

If their view is correct and the OP's insurance company is not entitled to claim the hire charges back from the third party, I suppose it comes back to what the OP's policy says about hire charges incurred by the insurer, but which are irrecoverable from the third party.   I think it used to be the case that insurers could try to recover the charges from their insured, but I'm not sure if that still holds.

 

[Manxman in exile]

Hi @Stay calm. Drink Tea.  -  I don't have any expertise in the area of insurance law but I'm afraid that I (and I believe @unclebulgaria67 ) think that what you say above is correct.  Whether that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the law, I simply don't know.

It's a pity nobody else seems to want to contribute, but I think you should wait to see what other posters suggest before committing to any particular course of action.  As @BankFodder said, don't be in a hurry to sign anything or accept any settlement.

However, I do think that if I were you I'd check the terms and conditions of both my insurance policy and the taxi hire agreement (if you have one) to check what happens if your insurer/hire firm can't recover the hire fees from the third party.

Have you actually asked your insurer what would happen in that case?

As I say, see what help others can contribute

Further to my post just now, are you a member of a trade body or anything like that that might be able to give you advice?