News1 min ago
car accident
4 Answers
Had an accident in july 2002 both myself & partner in the same car 9 car pile up on motorway, we were not to blame, we were offered �1100 each our solicitor told us not to accept it, even though we have won the case we have to go to court. why is this?
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lisapa. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The company who insured the driver who caused the accident have accepted that he was to blame. They've assessed the amount owing to you and your partner as �1100 each and offered this as an 'out of court' settlement. If an out of court settlement is refused, then the matter has to go to court.
The court has to make its assessment based upon all of the facts placed before it. If only the insurance company attend, the court will only hear the 'other side's' case and, in the absence of any contradictory statements, would be likely to agree with the �1100 figure suggested by the insurance company.
The reason that you may be required to attend in person (rather than simply submitting documentary evidence about your injuries) is that the insurer's legal team may wish to challenge your evidence. (If you were being sued for something, you'd not be very happy if the person suing you could claim for a vastly exaggerated sum without you having the chance to challenge their testimony in court. The insurance company, similarly, have to be given the right to challenge your testimony).
Chris
The court has to make its assessment based upon all of the facts placed before it. If only the insurance company attend, the court will only hear the 'other side's' case and, in the absence of any contradictory statements, would be likely to agree with the �1100 figure suggested by the insurance company.
The reason that you may be required to attend in person (rather than simply submitting documentary evidence about your injuries) is that the insurer's legal team may wish to challenge your evidence. (If you were being sued for something, you'd not be very happy if the person suing you could claim for a vastly exaggerated sum without you having the chance to challenge their testimony in court. The insurance company, similarly, have to be given the right to challenge your testimony).
Chris
It's a tactic often employed by insurance companies to unsettle claimants. For most people a court appearence is a daunting process, even if as in this case you are on the winning side. The idea is that fearing the unknown you will settle out of court for the hugely inferior sum. If your evidence is valid, your witness and expert witness testimony sound, then you shouldn't have too much to worry about.
1 to 4 of 4
