Car and wife hit by another car!

vikingaero

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Still not sure what the other party are up to. THEY pushed to go through the insurance and have now admitted fault.

To be honest Ivory, despite what you said, I would probably go through my insurance too. What happened was an accident where your wife was injured to some extent. People change their minds about things all the time. To the other parties credit they went through the proper route and were also man enough to accept liability. Too many times over the years I've seen people deny responsibility for accidents, when quite clearly they are 100% to blame, because they are in denial - "I'm a good driver - how can it be my fault" or "I've never had an accident in 35 years!"

If I went home thinking I could pay a small amount for repairs, and then a month down the line find that the injured party decides to change their mind and launch a compensation claim then I wouldn't want to be in the situation of having to explain to my insurers that I went against policy t&cs and didn't inform them of a claim.

Quentin

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Still not sure what the other party are up to. THEY pushed to go through the insurance and have now admitted fault.

How else were they to get their repairs paid for?

Ivrytwr3

their wing mirror was knocked from its mount and as a guess wouldn't have been too expensive to repair/replace.

Now remember that they hadn't had an estimate done at that stage, but still pushed for insurance action.

I would have been happy with costs for for some t-cut, my time and effort and an apology.

When you factor in that they will/may have paid an excess and now have to declare they have been involved in an accident to their insurance when re-newing next, i just think involving the insurance was overkill (on their part!!)

I would have been happy to sign a letter accepting that the payment was received in final settlement for the incident.

Oh well!

Quentin

They had to report the incident as you do - it's a condition of the policy.

Getting estimates is not normally necessary when using your own insurance company.

Their insurance will be paying for all your costs involved in the incident (as well as repairs to their own insured's car minus the excess), but it only counts as one claim.

If the third party has NCD protection, then a claim seems sensible, (and if not, they can always have the claim removed by reimbursing their insurer if the final bill is small).

Ivrytwr3

but that's what i mean, £50 quid would have settled it for me and they sort their own vehicle.

+ it saves all the hassle of the amount of paperwork they no doubt had to fill in as did we.

flea72

the OPs wife is not at fault - if the door was open, when the car passed, then the driver of the car wasnt driving with due care and attention, something that would negate the fact the OPs wife had a door open, to oncoming traffic

If someone parked on double-yellow lines, and a car drove into it, then the driver of the car would be the one at fault, not the person who had parked the car, illegally (and before the pedantics start the blue badge/double yellow legalties:rolleyes:)

I dont know of any person who climbs in the back of their car to strap their kids in, other than maybe someone with a people carrier who has to climb in, to get to rear seats, or someone with a 3dr car, again, where you have to climb in to be able to reach the child restraints. Anyone with a 5dr car cannot easily climb in the back to strap kids in, or in my case, i have car seats on both sides of my car, which means one child will always have to be strapped in roadside (or do i have to turn the car around?) - luckily my car has sliding doors, or in this case unluckily, as it would then have been my backside that took the full force of the negligent drivers wing mirror

Flea

cyclonebri1

vikingaero wrote: »

Good news Ivory.

Sometimes people on here are quick to jump onto the crazy school run mum (which is entirely another topic) and ignore the facts and/or common sense.

If someone opens their car door suddenly into traffic or a passing cyclist then yes they are negligent. What happened here was someone trying to load a car with their sprog with the car door already open. If this occurs then other motorists have to make way around the obstruction. Same goes if a van was being unloaded with goods from the side door, you can't expect the driver and goods to disappear from the roadside in a nano-second if a car passes.

Sorry, but you only know that from what the OP said, which was the whole issue with this post, only hearing one side of the argument.

Sound me as if the insurance company, not the other driver, has had to accept liability? They are pretty friendly with each other and allways want a settlement, thats when they get paid, tit for tat etc. No doubt the other party feels sold down the river.

Not being anti anyone here, just sort of devils advocate?

vikingaero

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Sorry, but you only know that from what the OP said, which was the whole issue with this post, only hearing one side of the argument.

Sound me as if the insurance company, not the other driver, has had to accept liability? They are pretty friendly with each other and allways want a settlement, thats when they get paid, tit for tat etc. No doubt the other party feels sold down the river.

Not being anti anyone here, just sort of devils advocate?

Well the OP has witnesses which corroborate their version of events. And the third party wanted to go through insurance themselves and in all probability admitted liability on the claim form - otherwise the third party insurers would have sent a letter instead to the OP saying something along the lines of "We believe that you are liable in the accident and are responsible for the cost of repairs blah blah."

Quentin

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

but that's what i mean, £50 quid would have settled it for me and they sort their own vehicle.

+ it saves all the hassle of the amount of paperwork they no doubt had to fill in as did we.

It's always dangerous to do deals like this. How do you know the matter won't come back and bite you (as handing over the £50 can be seen as an admission of liability). And in your case the third party disputed liability.

The incident has to be reported to the insurer whatever, so, depending on the circumstances (and in this one there was a dispute over who was responsible), you may as well let the insurer sort out the liability issue.

cyclonebri1

vikingaero wrote: »

Well the OP has witnesses which corroborate their version of events. And the third party wanted to go through insurance themselves and in all probability admitted liability on the claim form - otherwise the third party insurers would have sent a letter instead to the OP saying something along the lines of "We believe that you are liable in the accident and are responsible for the cost of repairs blah blah."

Along the lines of what I was thinking , agreed.