Car Insurance Claim Hell !!!!!!!!!

Going_Digital

Are they withholding payment for damage to the front of your car claiming the damage was caused by you hitting the car in front?

If so I guess you will have to fight it as you have the evidence.

If however they are claiming that the accident was partly your fault due to your having stopped suddenly due to hitting the car in front then that is a nonsense. If you are hit from behind it is always the driver behind that is at fault regardless of how suddenly you stopped. As they should leave sufficient stopping distance between their vehicle and you.

dacouch

The vehicle in front has not yet claimed off your Insurance which does help to some extent although his Insurers would have paid his repairs (If he had any damage) and then eventually they would try and recover it off you (This can take years before they do).

A statement from an independant witness which confirms what happend and a agrees with your statement would prove your case.

marty125

My wife was turning right off of a main road into the cul-de-sac where we live and was hit by a driver trying to overtake her.
The nose of my wifes car was just in the cul-de-sac when the car hit her in the drivers side.
The car was attempting to overtake my wife and clearly going too fast.
My insureers have said that they will settle 70/30 in our favour. I hung up on them as I thought they were complete idiots!
I have spoke to them since and they said it was cause my wife didnt carry out her checks before turning! Yes she did!
They have also said that this case is similar to a few others and they have been settled 70/30! I asked when this president was set in court and the reply was 28 years ago!
I have not had the car repaired yet, should I keep fighting my insurers? Someone please help me

dacouch

It depends on the exact circumstances and the road markings etc.

The other driver could be allegeding your wife did not signal.

Do you have any evidence eg witnesses or photographs?

mattymoo

Marty125 - the insurers are telling the truth. Just because a precendent was set 28 years ago does not make it any less relevant. The laws of the road have not changed.

Essentially, other party 70% at fault for overtaking at a junction.
Your wife - 30% at fault for failing to check mirrors before making the manouvre. Remember - mirror - signal - manouvre.

These cases often involve people overtaking tractors as they turn into fields.

marty125

My wife did check her mirrors and didn't see the car till it was in the side of her. All acciedents have different circumstances so how can they try and blame my wife 30% when it was the other party who hit her?
The other woman must have been going over 30mph and could not have been paying attention.
We have pictures of the acciedent and a witness. I dont believe that my insureers have represented my fully nor attempted to get a 100% settlement. As the case is unchallenged in 28 years and every inciedent is different, why would I not be able to win?

FlameCloud

The vast majority of how insurers deal with normal, day to day insurance claims is based of judicial precedent from 1881, with a load also coming even earlier in 1806. Just because the law is old doesn't mean its irrelevent today.

You can challenge it, but depending on the court the case was originally fought in it will be exceptionally expensive. This is because precidents set down by a higher court are binding- (with a small number of exceptions) hence for example a Magistrates court cannot overturn a ruling made in a Crown Court, which cannot overturn a decision made by the Court of Appeal, which in turn cannot overule the House of Lords.

You say she was not paying attention- how do you know this? Were you there?

mattymoo

marty125 wrote: »

My wife did check her mirrors and didn't see the car till it was in the side of her.

And that is where the problem is.
Supposing your insurers agree to fight this and the matter goes to court. If you wife says what I've quoted above or words to that effect, the other side will simply claim she had no situational awareness of what other vehicles were doing. After all, the other vehicle did not materialise out of thin air.

If she then tries to say she did see it, they will say "well why did you manouvre then?" A newly qualified barrister would have her tied up in knots inside 5 minutes.

So the insurers rely on the precedents set in previous cases where somebody has debated the exact same issues before and a judge has considered the matter at length and decided it was 70/30 in your wifes favour.

Atermis

Joliffe v Hay (1991)
Plaintiff was driving a car in the vicinity of a junction, intending to turn right. He was hit by a car from behind attempting to overtake.
Plaintiff 30% to blame as he hadn’t adequately checked person behind was about to overtake, he had only used his mirror once.
Defendant 70% to blame.

Bungalow_Bill_2

Is there any point in fighting against a Joliffe vs Hay case? This happened to me and the car that hit me from the rear has made a claim against me. I would say I had committed myself to the manouvre and was more or less in the junction when the dozy git hit the back of my car.

Thanks