Going knock for knock?

welshmoneylover

Thank you for your comments and opinions,

LadyIndecisive

On what basis are the third party insurers attaching some liability to the male driver - have they detailed this? Was the male driver passing parked vehicles on his side of the road perhaps? Often, bearing in mind the damage to the male drivers vehicle, insurers would use the argument that he could not have moved sideways in to her vehicle indicating she drove into him and not vice versa.

lisyloo

Welcome back LadyIndecisive :T

I was going to mention whether the damage indicated anything objective.
However the problem is that she/they (the other insurer) can simply deny the scenrio e.g. passing parked cars, as there are no witnesses to say otherwise.
Of course they might commit themselves to a scenrio and then tie themselves up in knots which proves they are lying.

So I guess the answer is to press the insurer to see if the stories add up.
They might just be going knock-for-knock straight away without putting in any effort as that costs them less. Sometimes you do have to dig your heels in and stand up for yourself. (But they still wouldn't fight it in court unless there are any massive holes in her story).

LadyIndecisive

Thanks lisyloo

It's important to know what the allegations are in order to make proper counter arguments. Sounds like there's possibly more to this. Insurers won't generally waste time & money arguing black is white; the old rules of liability are there to save this effort. If this is a simple case of a vehicle emerging from a parked position into the path of the correctly proceeding vehicle established on the main road it is quite clear cut. However, proceeding correctly at a legal speed doesn't totally exonerate one from paying heed to other road users unfortunately.

The 'quick enough to take your money' comment made me smile OP. I worked in claims for many years and if I had a £1 for each time I heard this I would no longer need to work in insurance.

welshmoneylover

Hi, the male driver wasn't over taking any parked cars. He was driving in a straight manner down the street and not speeding.

I think I am going to advise him to dig his heels in!

lisyloo

I think that's the correct approach as a lot of companies are quick to fob you off these days (or seek the most cost effective route).

However don't expect a lie detectetor expert and team of forensic collision investigators to be employed.
It doesn't make sense to spend thousands of pounds allocating blame when the costs are in hundreds.
Despite the unfairness of this, it's where the "knock-for-knock" system comes from and ultimately keeps premiums low for you (and him).
I'm sure you wouldn't want to pay double or triple your premium to have every case investigated by forensic experts in the name of fairness.

Sorry, but however unsatisfactory that is, I'm sure that you can see the logic.

welshmoneylover

Oh well, it looks like it is going to be settled in court.

Can anyone give me some of their experiences of going to court so we can be prepared for anything!

Ta x

welshmoneylover

Just an update, the male driver has won his case! He is very pleased he held out and stood his ground, it just goes to show if you believe you are in the right then you must stick up for yourself!

mattymoo

Was it you?
Was the action heard under the small claims procedure?
If so, why do you think you won? Was it down to quality of the evidence or did the other side fold before trial?
Good result anyway - well done.

welshmoneylover

It was down to me as I wrote his replies in an academic legal type way and yes, the other side folded in the end.

I feel rather pleased with myself.