We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Was this collision 'my fault'?
Options
Comments
-
I was in a 5 car collision a few years ago. There was black ice on the road and it hadn't been gritted. We were all going about 40mph and I had a good gap between me and the car in front. I was the 3rd vehicle out of 5.
The first car braked (on a straight bit of road, nothing in front of her. I think she panicked) and skidded 360 degrees. She ended up facing the same was as she had been before she skidded.
I saw her starting to skid so I began to change down gears and brake slowly. Nothing happened. I ended up pumping the brakes to no avail and I skidded in a straight line into the second car in line, which had already hit the first car, so it hit it a second time. Then the car behind me hit me, and I hit the car in front of me again. You get the idea!
We all got out. No-one admitted liabilty. Everyone said the roads were in a terrible state (I slipped when I got out of my car). The police came, and said it would probably be 'knock for knock'. We swapped details and I informed my insurance company. A week or so later I got a letter from the first cars solicitor, blaming me, the middle car of 5! I told my insurance company and sent them a copy of the letter I sent to the first car's solicitors, andthat was that. She didn't get to claim off my insurance.
It turned out the girl was 18, and was driving her dad's car as it was bigger than her own, and he told her it would be safer. It was written off and as she was driving under her own car's insurance, she was only covered third party.0 -
I know this wont be popular but while it is the fault of the car at the back (in the eyes of the insurance industry), if the OP had read the road correctly and simply slowed down rather than stopped the accident would not have happened therefore morally the OP is to blame.
If insurance companies started looking at all the circumstances of accidents the responsibility for about half of all accidents would probably switch to people who get off scot free for accidents they cause, often being the primary cause and driving away oblivious.
If the OP braked suddenly at this junction they should bear about 80% of the blame, otherwise probably 50% OP, 20% Eos and 30% car at back.
I completely disagree with you, the OP isn't morally to blame in the slightest. What would have happened if someone had run in front of her or a car had pulled out in front of her regardless of whos right of way it is? Is she just meant to hit them?
I do agree she shouldn't have braked but I really don't think she should be held accountable for this and I believe the way the insurance companies handle it is totally correct.
OP, how were the other drivers attitudes when you got out?0 -
No I gave an example of a roadworthy vehicle i.e one that is fully serviced. Check post#18 againYou gave an example of an unroadworthy car that caused an accident. ...
It was you that suggested you as an insurance worker with 21 years experience would refuse to pay out a claim unless it was being continued to be driven in an unroadworthy condition
(see post #21 - driver being negligent)
Well I certainly hope I'm not insured with your company! :eek:In the second example you had a fully maintained vehicle with nothing to indicate an imminent brake failure. Where has the policyholder been negligent? There claim would be paid if they were fully comp but the third parties would not because they could not prove negligence.
You may not pay out as the insurer, but I hope my insurance indemnifies me against such a claim.
If I was the driver of such a vehicle that developed such a fault and I thereby caused damage to another persons property, I would fully expect that other person to claim against me for there loss - just as I would do if another vehicle hit me.
This comes into things because, according to you, your company only pays outs claims where the driver has been negligent. According to my insurance policy, where I as the driver caused the accident through my negligence, my insurer can and will attempt to recover any third party costs from me.Where does recovering costs from our own customer come into things?
I agree, that is totally irrelevant here. There's no suggestion of non-disclosure, so the driver is insured.There are situations where that can happen but that is not what is being discussed here. Typically it will be where a policy is voided from inception due to non-disclosure but an accident occurs. Technically there is no insurance in place but the Road Traffic Act requires victims of uninsured motorists to be compensated. This is the role of the MIB (motor insurers bureau) but they are a fund of last resort. Therefore the claim would revert to the insurer who issued the original policy, even though it was voided. In those circumstances they would be entitled to a recovery against their own policyholder.As for the dog, there is nothing whatsoever to stop you making a claim and involving the police. Whether or not it will be successful depends entirely on the dogs previous history and whether or not it has a propensity to bite or other aggresive tendancies that the owner would have been aware of. Exception to this is dangerous dogs as defined by the act of parliament.
This link explains it - http://www.1stclass.tv/dog_bite_claims.html
Therefore if the dog was previously a docile creature and the attack was out of the blue, a claim would not succeed.
No, the issue would be whether I could prove to a court that the dog was not being controlled adequately (quite easy if it bit me) and whether I could prove quantifiable loss.
Whether your insurance policy covers such an event is debateable, as the owner would be considered as being negligent - a vital requirement according to you about whether you pay out a claim.
If the owner was negligent you would pay out ... but as you seem to agree you would recover the costs from the insured.
If the owner was not negligent, you say you wouldn't pay out the claim.
Seems the perfect insurance business. You accept premiums and only pay out where there is a reasonable chance of success of charging the insured for any loss incurred.
The question in my mind is why bother buying insurance from your company?
I tend not to believe ambulance chasers, so wouldn't place any credence to the link you provided, sorry. I prefer to listen to judges in court who will entertain a claim against a dog owner who does not adequately control his animal in public and so allows him to bite an innocent third party, irrespective of whether the dog has ever done so before."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
No I gave an example of a roadworthy vehicle i.e one that is fully serviced. Check post#18 again
Check your own post 25 again - you quote both scenarios.It was you that suggested you as an insurance worker with 21 years experience would refuse to pay out a claim unless it was being continued to be driven in an unroadworthy condition
(see post #21 - driver being negligent)
Well I certainly hope I'm not insured with your company! :eek:
All insurance companies work in this way - you are failing to grasp that there are two different kinds of cover at work here.
The policyholders own cover (when fully comp) with the policyholder and insurer being the 1st and 2nd parties to the contract.
The cover for third party liabilities - all other persons are third parties to the contract, i.e. other road users, pedestrians etc. For a third party to pursue a claim against a policyholders insurance policy they must do so under the tort of negligence - no two ways about it. For the claim to succeed they must prove the policyholder was negligent.You may not pay out as the insurer, but I hope my insurance indemnifies me against such a claim.
If I was the driver of such a vehicle that developed such a fault and I thereby caused damage to another persons property, I would fully expect that other person to claim against me for there loss - just as I would do if another vehicle hit me.
Of course the policy would indemnify you in terms of either defending or settling that claim. If the third party has no claim against you because you were not negligent, the matter would be defended. Having said that, many insurers will take the easy route out and settle smaller claims but that is another thread.This comes into things because, according to you, your company only pays outs claims where the driver has been negligent.
Correct - all insurers only pay out to third parties when their policyholder has been negligent.According to my insurance policy, where I as the driver caused the accident through my negligence, my insurer can and will attempt to recover any third party costs from me.
Re-read the policy. Recovery of costs is only made where you have breached the policy conditions, e.g. non disclosure, non payment of premium or similar. Insurers do not recover the cost of the third party claims from their policyholders simply because they were negligent. What would be the point of having insurance?No, the issue would be whether I could prove to a court that the dog was not being controlled adequately (quite easy if it bit me) and whether I could prove quantifiable loss.
Whether your insurance policy covers such an event is debateable, as the owner would be considered as being negligent - a vital requirement according to you about whether you pay out a claim.
Just because an animal is not on a leash does not mean it is out of control or aggresive. Supposing you were a postman and the dog was in a fenced garden. The critical test in English law is whether that dog has bitten before or shown aggresive tendancies. If not, it is harder to prove negligence on the owners part.If the owner was negligent you would pay out ... but as you seem to agree you would recover the costs from the insured.
Never said that in relation to the dog example. If owner negligent, we pay out, case closed - move on.If the owner was not negligent, you say you wouldn't pay out the claim.
Seems the perfect insurance business. You accept premiums and only pay out where there is a reasonable chance of success of charging the insured for any loss incurred.
Do you actually understand what an insurance policy is? Why would an insurer pay out a third party if their policyholder was not negligent. If you had a crash that was not your fault, would you be happy if your insurer paid money to the person who did cause it?I tend not to believe ambulance chasers, so wouldn't place any credence to the link you provided, sorry. I prefer to listen to judges in court who will entertain a claim against a dog owner who does not adequately control his animal in public and so allows him to bite an innocent third party, irrespective of whether the dog has ever done so before.
The ambulance chasers in question are pointing out the difficulties in pursuing dog bite claims and the fact that you need to prove the dog had a prior history. It is judges in court who have made this decision and set the threshold for determining liability in previous caselaw.0 -
I think you'll find I was trying to clarify in that post what you had written in post #21 where you first introduced the case of an unroadworthy vehicleCheck your own post 25 again - you quote both scenarios.
As a third party victim, I don't claim against an insurance company. I claim against the person that caused me the damage. If they want their own insurance to indemnify them against such claim that's up to them and between them. My claim is against the individual concerned.All insurance companies work in this way - you are failing to grasp that there are two different kinds of cover at work here.
The policyholders own cover (when fully comp) with the policyholder and insurer being the 1st and 2nd parties to the contract.
The cover for third party liabilities - all other persons are third parties to the contract, i.e. other road users, pedestrians etc. For a third party to pursue a claim against a policyholders insurance policy they must do so under the tort of negligence - no two ways about it. For the claim to succeed they must prove the policyholder was negligent.
Only if it was as part of the specified risks and not excluded e.g. because of negligence on my partOf course the policy would indemnify you in terms of either defending or settling that claim. If the third party has no claim against you because you were not negligent, the matter would be defended. Having said that, many insurers will take the easy route out and settle smaller claims but that is another thread.
Even if the insurer defended a claim, it is not the insurance company that decides, but the court
Now if only that were true.Correct - all insurers only pay out to third parties when their policyholder has been negligent.
There are so many claims that are refused by insurers because their insured acted negligently - refer to the exclusions clauses.
I've re-read my policy and it is littered with exclusions should I act negligently.Re-read the policy. Recovery of costs is only made where you have breached the policy conditions, e.g. non disclosure, non payment of premium or similar. Insurers do not recover the cost of the third party claims from their policyholders simply because they were negligent. What would be the point of having insurance?
Where I act negligently, the insurer sometimes simply dismisses the claim as not permissible. Where this is prohibited by law, then the policy states that the insurer may pursue the policyholder for the costs they incur in meeting their legal liabilities to third parties.
The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the insured against specified risks. Those risks tend to be risks that one cannot foresee as happening.
In your example of continuing to drive an unroadworthy vehicle because the brakes are known, or are reasonably suspected as being defective would nullify the insurance as it would be reasonable to expect a vehicle without brakes would fail to stop and probably collide with another vehicle, person or property and cause damage.
You don't need to prove negligence. All you need to prove is that you had a legitimate right to be in the area of the attack (a postman has a right to approach the front door of a property to deliver mail to that property),that the dog through lack of owner control bit you, and that a quantifiable loss can be attributed to the attack. Medical bills, loss of earnings, pain & suffering, etc.Just because an animal is not on a leash does not mean it is out of control or aggresive. Supposing you were a postman and the dog was in a fenced garden. The critical test in English law is whether that dog has bitten before or shown aggresive tendancies. If not, it is harder to prove negligence on the owners part.
So you insure dog owners and pay out all their claims no matter how negligently they act?Never said that in relation to the dog example. If owner negligent, we pay out, case closed - move on.
What about car drivers?
You already said your insurance company only pays out if the driver is proven to have acted negligently. Do you always pay out where your insured has acted negligently? Do you never try and recover those costs because your policyholder has acted negligently and therefore caused you a loss?
Yes I do understand what an insurance policy does. It indemnifies the insured against specified risks/perilsDo you actually understand what an insurance policy is? Why would an insurer pay out a third party if their policyholder was not negligent. If you had a crash that was not your fault, would you be happy if your insurer paid money to the person who did cause it?
There are a number of times that is excludes cover for when an insured has acted negligently, as there are a number of times it covers an insured where the insured has not acted negligently e.g. the case of brake failure on an otherwise well maintained vehicle.
No I wouldn't want my insurer to pay money to a person that caused an accident, but I would expect an insurance company to pay an innocent third party who suffered loss as the result of someone else, even if that other person had not acted negligently. Again, I refer to the case of sudden brake failure on an otherwise well maintained vehicle.
The ambulance chasers only want to take cases where they have a good chance of earning big bucks. i.e. the easy to win cases.The ambulance chasers in question are pointing out the difficulties in pursuing dog bite claims and the fact that you need to prove the dog had a prior history. It is judges in court who have made this decision and set the threshold for determining liability in previous caselaw.
There are cases settled by judges on an almost weekly basis that pay damages to dog bite victims where the dog has no prior history of attacking a person.
However, the decisions of county court judges are not the basis of setting case law."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
I agree with most of the posts above; it is not your fault. Ok, maybe you should not have stopped, but everybody on the road should leave enough stooping room in case of emrgency. In reality, this often does not happen and it's the fault of the person at the back, not the front.
Either way, just to add one point that I don't think has been mentioned; do not admit liability! Leave it to the insurance company.Marching On Together
I've upped my standards...so up yours!
0 -
I was given a fantastic piece of advice from a seasoned driver when I first learned to drive - always presume that a brick wall could suddenly appear in the road 30ft in front of you! I have kept this piece of advice in my head every time I drive - what is in front of me and what is behind - if that 30ft wall suddenly appeared I would have to react and so would the vehicles behind me. I always pay attention to vehicles both behind and in front (thanks Jeff).
Julie0 -
Edit: btw, negligence doesn't have to come into it. If someone else causes you loss, you can claim that loss from them.
But that's the point. The driver of the Eos didn't cause the loss, the driver who hit the Eos caused the loss. I'm afraid you're totally wrong on all this - you should listen to mattymoo, you might learn something.0 -
I would expect an insurance company to pay an innocent third party who suffered loss as the result of someone else, even if that other person had not acted negligently. Again, I refer to the case of sudden brake failure on an otherwise well maintained vehicle
Why would you expect them to pay a liability that does not exist in law?0 -
As a third party victim, I don't claim against an insurance company. I claim against the person that caused me the damage. If they want their own insurance to indemnify them against such claim that's up to them and between them. My claim is against the individual concerned.
Correct, your claim is against the negligent party. Their insurers (if they choose to involve them) will handle the matter on their behalf under their rights of subrogation.Only if it was as part of the specified risks and not excluded e.g. because of negligence on my part
Even if the insurer defended a claim, it is not the insurance company that decides, but the court
Specified risks do not apply to the liability sections of the policies. They will indemnify the policyholder for the legal liabilities in a civil court arising out of their use of a motor vehicle.
99% of cases never go anywhere near a courtroom. The insurers decide the cases based on case law. Interpretation of case law is a complex area and there can be 2 sides to the argument. If at the end of the day the matter cannot be agreed the matter would go to trial.Now if only that were true.
There are so many claims that are refused by insurers because their insured acted negligently - refer to the exclusions clauses.
Are we still talking about third party claims here? If so, and the insured had acted negligently in their use of a motor vehicle then the policy would compensate the injured third party.I've re-read my policy and it is littered with exclusions should I act negligently.
Where I act negligently, the insurer sometimes simply dismisses the claim as not permissible. Where this is prohibited by law, then the policy states that the insurer may pursue the policyholder for the costs they incur in meeting their legal liabilities to third parties.
You appear to be confusing negligence on the road with compliance with policy conditions. If through your negligence an innocent party suffers a loss then the insurance policy is triggered.
Policy conditions state that you must notify them of the incident, forward correspondance and co-operate with their investigations. You must also pay the premium. Failure to do so could increase the claim costs and in extreme cases the insurers may look to recover those increased costs.
If you are talking about being drunk at the time of the accident then many firms will seek to recover the cost of any claims from their policyholder. That is not a negligent act mind, it is a criminal act.The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the insured against specified risks. Those risks tend to be risks that one cannot foresee as happening.
In your example of continuing to drive an unroadworthy vehicle because the brakes are known, or are reasonably suspected as being defective would nullify the insurance as it would be reasonable to expect a vehicle without brakes would fail to stop and probably collide with another vehicle, person or property and cause damage.
Nulify the comprehensive cover to pay for own damage - yes. Nulify the third party liability section - no.You don't need to prove negligence. All you need to prove is that you had a legitimate right to be in the area of the attack (a postman has a right to approach the front door of a property to deliver mail to that property),that the dog through lack of owner control bit you, and that a quantifiable loss can be attributed to the attack. Medical bills, loss of earnings, pain & suffering, etc.
Sorry but you do need to prove it - see http://www.a-level-law.com/tort/Negligence/Flowchart.pdfSo you insure dog owners and pay out all their claims no matter how negligently they act?
Pay out claims to injured third parties if the dog owner has acted negligently - yes.What about car drivers?
You already said your insurance company only pays out if the driver is proven to have acted negligently. Do you always pay out where your insured has acted negligently? Do you never try and recover those costs because your policyholder has acted negligently and therefore caused you a loss?
See above. If the driver acted negligently then injured third parties (other road users, pedestrians etc) would be compensated. No recovery from own policyholder unless they have failed to comply with the policy conditions relating to the management of the claim / policy or were drunk at time of incident. No recovery is pursued simply based on the fact that the policyholder had an accident due to their negligence.Yes I do understand what an insurance policy does. It indemnifies the insured against specified risks/perils
There are a number of times that is excludes cover for when an insured has acted negligently, as there are a number of times it covers an insured where the insured has not acted negligently e.g. the case of brake failure on an otherwise well maintained vehicle.
No I wouldn't want my insurer to pay money to a person that caused an accident, but I would expect an insurance company to pay an innocent third party who suffered loss as the result of someone else, even if that other person had not acted negligently. Again, I refer to the case of sudden brake failure on an otherwise well maintained vehicle.
This seems to be your sticking point. The third party section on a motor policy covers your legal liabilities under the English legal system. An employers liability policy covers an employers legal liabilities to their employees. If no legal liability exists (as negligence not proven) then the third party or employee would be uncompensated.
I should explain that the injured person whose claim has been turned down due to lack of negligence on the policyholders part, DOES not get a second bite of the cherry by suing the policyholder directly. Under an insurers rights of subrogation the insurer acts in the policyholders place.
Also when I say we turn a claim down it is not a simple flat "go away - we're not paying". We would write to their solicitors explaining why we feel our policyholder was not liable and would disclose the evidence we had to back that up. They will then either accept that and walk away or litigate through the issue of a court summons.The ambulance chasers only want to take cases where they have a good chance of earning big bucks. i.e. the easy to win cases.
There are cases settled by judges on an almost weekly basis that pay damages to dog bite victims where the dog has no prior history of attacking a person.
However, the decisions of county court judges are not the basis of setting case law.
I would agree with all of what you've said there. County court judgements are an absolute lottery.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards