This practise has a long history. Prior to 1976 (if my ailing memory serves me), the courts were chocked with insurance companies suing insurance companies. Invariably courts would award 60/40. Obvious-blame issues naturally did not go to court. Insurance companies soon worked out that they were merely increasing the costs with all of the legal fees and round about that time they signed a knock-for-knock agreement.
The essence of the agreement was that each company would pay their clients' own damages and only "ask" each other for their clients' excess if:
- the client inquired
- and there was patent and clear major fault by the other party
Naturally this brought about conflict when both parties were with the same insurer or when one party had no cover. In the case of the latter, the insurer will attempt to recover the full damages from the other party, because being uninsured, he was never party to the knock-for-knock agreement. If the uninsured digs his heels in they will frequently settle for the excess, because that is most likely all that the courts will award.
The essence of the agreement was that each company would pay their clients' own damages and only "ask" each other for their clients' excess if:
- the client inquired
- and there was patent and clear major fault by the other party
Naturally this brought about conflict when both parties were with the same insurer or when one party had no cover. In the case of the latter, the insurer will attempt to recover the full damages from the other party, because being uninsured, he was never party to the knock-for-knock agreement. If the uninsured digs his heels in they will frequently settle for the excess, because that is most likely all that the courts will award.
Comment