Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News1 min ago
Car Insurance- Whose Fault Was It?
19 Answers
Hi, I'd like to ask other people's opinion on my problem. A few months ago, I had a small accident. I was waiting at junction to main road and due to cars being parked up obstructing my view- I had edged out so I could get a better view. Seeing cars coming, I waited until I could exit. One of the cars that passed me, clipped my front bumper. I rang my insurers to report the incident. They said it was my fault and that they would have to pay out. But I don't believe it was and I'd like to write a letter of complaint. The other party are now claiming personal injury and so my insurers are fighting it. They sent someone round to take a statement from me and he said that it wasn't my fault- but my insurers are still arguing that it was. Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the matter???
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fairy-dust. 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.
Sadly, you're at fault - it's a really nasty situation that I see all too often. If people had the coutesey to park appropriately at junctions (or more to the point if the bloody police sorted this situation out at the bottom of my street), this would rarely occur.
You're in a catch 22 situation - you can't exactly stop the car, get out, look left and right, get back in the car then pull out, but equally you're pulling out of a minor road, so the onus is on you to ensure that the way is clear before proceeding.
There are no case laws in effect to get you off the hook, and the idiots who park too close to junctions get away equally unscathed.
Your insurers are correct to admit liability to the third party insurers, but take no notice of anything an investigator tells you when they;re taking a statement - they're usually ex-coppers who don;t know that much about insurance practice - in reality, you're not at fault, but in the eyes of the alw you are
You're in a catch 22 situation - you can't exactly stop the car, get out, look left and right, get back in the car then pull out, but equally you're pulling out of a minor road, so the onus is on you to ensure that the way is clear before proceeding.
There are no case laws in effect to get you off the hook, and the idiots who park too close to junctions get away equally unscathed.
Your insurers are correct to admit liability to the third party insurers, but take no notice of anything an investigator tells you when they;re taking a statement - they're usually ex-coppers who don;t know that much about insurance practice - in reality, you're not at fault, but in the eyes of the alw you are
You could approach your insurer and suggest a split liability settlement. You were at fault for sticking your front end out but the other driver also has to take some responsability as other cars had passed you with no problem, your were stationary and he hit you. I think there is definately scope for a split liability settlement. Are you claiming for repairs, and have you had to pay an excess? If so you can make a claim yourself through a solicitor to recover your excess amount. Your solicitor will fight your corner and your insurers will not be able to settle without consulting your solicitor as it would prejudice your claim.
Speak with a No Win No Fee solicitors if you have got time and settlement has not already been agreed.
Speak with a No Win No Fee solicitors if you have got time and settlement has not already been agreed.
sometimes its best not to involve insurers.....is you bumper expensive to replace or repaint, out of your own pocket, the problem is the other driver has your details......i had simalar small accident two years ago , the other driver got my details (i volunteered them to him) , he didnt give me his, i never contacted my insurance, i never contacted the other driver, him with no name ??? , seven months later his insurers , through thier own enquiries contacted my insurers , ----- the reply i gave to my insurers , "was the person driving my car on that day over 7 months ago, wasnt insured on my policy " , so my insurers were not liable , the other driver (with no name, never reported to the police), so it was unlikely that after 7 months the police would come knocking on my door, thier were no special circumstances attactched to th accident, no one was injured, no assault (road rage) , my NCB remained in tact, superficial bumper repiar needed minimal, the other party, had to fork out �175 --excess i was the bill , on his repairs, front grill damage only, labour and paint � 500 + , as i said sometimes its best not to involve insurers, ok i used evasive tactics...i wonder if the other party ever rememebred his name .......
Sorry wisewomen, there is no chance of a split liability settlement on this (unless the third party insurers are completely inept).
Whilst it's unfortunate that these accident occur because people can't park, if you're exiting a minor road onto the main carriageway, you have to give way to oncoming traffic.
As I've stated, there are no case laws to defend against this (I've tried for many of my neighbours who've been unfortunate enough to cop it at the end of my street).
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this as a split liability, but then should you really be penalising people for correctly proceeding down the road and someone pulls out in front of them? It would be fine in cases such as these, but then it's not always as cut and dry is it.
Whilst it's unfortunate that these accident occur because people can't park, if you're exiting a minor road onto the main carriageway, you have to give way to oncoming traffic.
As I've stated, there are no case laws to defend against this (I've tried for many of my neighbours who've been unfortunate enough to cop it at the end of my street).
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this as a split liability, but then should you really be penalising people for correctly proceeding down the road and someone pulls out in front of them? It would be fine in cases such as these, but then it's not always as cut and dry is it.
I understand what you are saying gouldc but that fact still remains that the vehicle was stationary regardless of its position in the road, road users have a responsilibity to avoid objects in their path which includes stationary vehicles. The vehicle could have broken down or anything and this does not give another road user a reason to hit it.
I do believe that with a solicitor acting a split liability is a real possibility. My work involved RTA Insurance claims and I have seen this done before.
Always best to get real legal advice before settling any legal dispute.
I do believe that with a solicitor acting a split liability is a real possibility. My work involved RTA Insurance claims and I have seen this done before.
Always best to get real legal advice before settling any legal dispute.
That is obviously a completely different situation, although you should always try and avoid a collision.
The fact remains that this vehicle had edged out of the junction, was stationary and other vehicles had already passed without hitting the vehicle and therefore there was adequate room to do so.
The fact remains that this vehicle had edged out of the junction, was stationary and other vehicles had already passed without hitting the vehicle and therefore there was adequate room to do so.
Completely different how?
A car from a minor road is stationary in a lane on a main road. It doesnt matter if you have been there for 2 seconds or 5 mins the fact is the user on the main road has right of way.
Months after the event can Fairy Dust prove that other cars went past her ok? No (even though they did).
The insurers will look purely at the known facts:
The marks on the other drivers car are on the side of the car and on Fiaries car on the bumper which suggests she hit the side of the the other driver.
Were you over the give way line and stationary on a main road? The answer is yes, its your fault
A car from a minor road is stationary in a lane on a main road. It doesnt matter if you have been there for 2 seconds or 5 mins the fact is the user on the main road has right of way.
Months after the event can Fairy Dust prove that other cars went past her ok? No (even though they did).
The insurers will look purely at the known facts:
The marks on the other drivers car are on the side of the car and on Fiaries car on the bumper which suggests she hit the side of the the other driver.
Were you over the give way line and stationary on a main road? The answer is yes, its your fault
The car user on the main road does have right of way.
However, this car user also has a duty to be vigilant on the road ahead, ie cars pulling out, people waliking out from behind vehicles etc etc.
Was the car driver on the main road travelling to fast to be able to stop in a situation like this, unless your car was ''sticking'' out considerably, the driver of the car on the main road must of been driving extremely close to the parked cars on the main road?
As for the claim for injuries etc
Total Boll0x, they are just trying it on.
However, this car user also has a duty to be vigilant on the road ahead, ie cars pulling out, people waliking out from behind vehicles etc etc.
Was the car driver on the main road travelling to fast to be able to stop in a situation like this, unless your car was ''sticking'' out considerably, the driver of the car on the main road must of been driving extremely close to the parked cars on the main road?
As for the claim for injuries etc
Total Boll0x, they are just trying it on.
I agree with Laurence2 you are exactly right. As for a claim for injuries this will be either proved or disproved by a Medico Legal Report obtained by the other drivers solicitor, but I am surprised your insurers are not disputing Causation (the ability to sustain an injury in a low speed impact).
Best of luck, whatever you decide to do.
Best of luck, whatever you decide to do.
The "injuires" (and I use that in a loose sense of the term) are panic attacks and some bruising. Whilst you may be able to rule out the bruising due to the low speed of the impact (assuming that the other vehicle was doing less than the 30mph limit), then panic attacks are not possible to rule out as they are not a physical injury.
Whilst I agree they are probably making it up, a low speed impact is determined as occurring between 0 and 10mph - anything over that is not a LSI.
Whilst I agree they are probably making it up, a low speed impact is determined as occurring between 0 and 10mph - anything over that is not a LSI.
Persumably the other driver is claiming for Whiplash - you can argue causation - however medical opinion is that whiplash can be casued from a low impact collision .
Personally, I think in this case that the other driver is after some easy money - and he/she will tell the expert who examines him/her for a medical report , ( which any claim for injuries will be based on ) that 'my neck hurts'
The question is - how are you going to prove that it doesn't ?
At the end of the day , if your insurers are resisting the injury claim , then the likelyhood is that ( depending on who is advising the other driver ) the case will proceed to litigation , and it will be up to the district judge to decide if the claim is thrown out or accepted - however he/she will base the decision on the contents of the medical report
As for liability , if you are slowly edging out from a junction because your view is obstructed - that is different from pulling out suddenly, into the path of another vehicle
As for liability - iv'e seen a 50/50 argued and accepted in similiar cases - depends on the judge , on the day .
Personally, I think in this case that the other driver is after some easy money - and he/she will tell the expert who examines him/her for a medical report , ( which any claim for injuries will be based on ) that 'my neck hurts'
The question is - how are you going to prove that it doesn't ?
At the end of the day , if your insurers are resisting the injury claim , then the likelyhood is that ( depending on who is advising the other driver ) the case will proceed to litigation , and it will be up to the district judge to decide if the claim is thrown out or accepted - however he/she will base the decision on the contents of the medical report
As for liability , if you are slowly edging out from a junction because your view is obstructed - that is different from pulling out suddenly, into the path of another vehicle
As for liability - iv'e seen a 50/50 argued and accepted in similiar cases - depends on the judge , on the day .
For what it's worth, i am an insurance underwriter and you are at fault. There can & will be no split liability. It's just that cut & dry i'm afraid. It's a shame people can't learn to park more responsibly.
You ould always take it upon yourself to inform your council and suggest a mirror be put up at that spot to help you see other cars approaching.
You ould always take it upon yourself to inform your council and suggest a mirror be put up at that spot to help you see other cars approaching.
Sifellis
Whils't this is not worth arguing over , as I have mentioned above , i've seen seen cases like the one in question go before a judge , and settled on a 50/50 liability split .
Likewise , settled outside of litigation on the same basis .
You can never gaurantee , what the final outcome will be in a case like this - it depends what stance the parties take .
Whils't this is not worth arguing over , as I have mentioned above , i've seen seen cases like the one in question go before a judge , and settled on a 50/50 liability split .
Likewise , settled outside of litigation on the same basis .
You can never gaurantee , what the final outcome will be in a case like this - it depends what stance the parties take .
If you own an automobile in one of several states, no fault insurance could be an option for you. There are a variety of opinions on no-fault insurance, and each state has a different law. In most states that allow no-fault automobile insurance, there is nevertheless legal recourse for injured drivers. I read this here: <a title="Insurance without a judgment of fault" href="http://www.cardealexpert.com/news-infor
mation/the-expert-explains/no-fault-vehicle-i
nsurance/">The
basics of no-fault vehicle insurance</a>
mation/the-expert-explains/no-fault-vehicle-i
nsurance/">The
basics of no-fault vehicle insurance</a>
If you own an automobile in one of several states, no fault insurance could be an option for you. There are a variety of opinions on no-fault insurance, and each state has a different law. In most states that allow no-fault automobile insurance, there is nevertheless legal recourse for injured drivers. I read this here: <a title="Insurance without a judgment of fault" href="http://www.cardealexpert.com/news-infor
mation/the-expert-explains/no-fault-vehicle-i
nsurance/">The
basics of no-fault vehicle insurance</a>
mation/the-expert-explains/no-fault-vehicle-i
nsurance/">The
basics of no-fault vehicle insurance</a>
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Sunday Post Cryptic Crossword ,
Crosswords6 mins ago