Should I accept 50/50?

[Bill_lpool]

Hi everyone, I really need your help

I approached a roundabout intending to go straight on and so I stopped in the left lane waiting for my path to be clear. There was cars in the right hand lane but they were a safe distance back and were not indicating or showing any signs of changing lanes or exiting. I pulled into the left lane and a car on th roundabout overtook me in the right hand lane so their car was about half way in front. The car then proceeded to try to exit the roundabout from the right hand lane without warning. There was no exit I could take and I couldn't brake in time and hence the third parties car's front passenger door collided with my drivers side front wing.

There was no independent witnesses.

The case has been in dispute between solicitors/insurers for ages as the third party claims I pulled out into her side - but I have no front end damage (only wing) which I surely would have in this situation. My solicitors asked me to offer 50/50 but I felt I had done nothing wrong so refused. The third parties solicitors have now offered a 50/50 and I am wondering whether I should accept as I am wondering if I have a chance in court to disprove her and because it's going to be months before it even reaches court.

Do you think I was in right? What do you think my chances of winning in court are? what would you do?

Thanks

[Lakitu]

I don't know about your chances of winning in court but if I were you I'd stick to my guns.

Has your car been fixed and you've paid the excess? If yes, then let them to battle it out, that's what you pay your insurance for.

[Bill_lpool]

Yer, I've got loads of pictures of the damage myself and then fixed it.

Her insurance company is just supporting her statement which is that I pulled out into her and my insurance/solicitors don't seem to care about how the damage compares to the statements of events. Their answer was just theres no independent witnesses so we can't prove anything???

The funny thing is I went to the insurers and said nobody from my them has come to look at the car. Their response was that because I'm 3rd party and they don't have to pay to repair my car, they don't care what the damage is - even when I pointed out my damage contradicts her story they just weren't interested!!!

The solicitors just seem to want to take the easiest option for them and get paid and the insurance aren't doing anything?

[Lakitu]

Tough for them, them getting paid by your insurer has got damn all to do with you.

You've got nothing to lose by letting it go on, you have your car fixed and back to you. If you settle 50/50, then you'll have to pay out of your own pocket because you're 3rd party, right?

I wouldn't take that chance of always wondering 'what if'. Jeezo, if every accident that didn't have witnesses resulted in a 50/50, there would be an awful lot more (more) skint people out there.

If the damage contradicts her story then why don't you poin that out in court and let thm decide?

Don't back down!

[gouldc]

First of all, you won't have to pay anything to the other party because you have less than comprehensive cover - I have no idea where peoplle get this idea from - third party cover means that you are covered for the third party damage, not yours. There is no reason to inspect your car, as they have rightly said that they would not be repairing your car even if you were 100% not at fault.

In regards to a 50/50, with no independent witnesses, that's all you're going to get. These claims are nightmares to deal with when there is a witness, never mind when there isn't.

Generally in these cases, only one person is telling the truth, and the insurer is going to believe their client first and foremost.

Dispute it all you want, but your insurer will not allow this to go to court given what you've told us, and it will end up getting settled regardless on a 50/50 basis.

And for the record, not every accident that occurs without witnesses is a 50/50 settlement - roundabout collisions are notoriously difficult to prove - all the other party has to say is that you dangerously undertook them on the roundabout, hence the collision - no witnesses means that their version of events is a probable as yours is. The damage would appear consistent in both scenarios - seen it far too many times.