Car Crash URGENT help needed!!

lisyloo

It's not irony, it's what insurance is for.

No it's not, or it shouldn't be.
Insurance is not there for the purpose of providing an income for ambulance chasers and an easy win for fraudsters.
Unfortunately because of the costs of fighting claims, insurers do often "give in" and pay up, rather than fight.

However the "injured" parties will have to see doctors and provide evidence.
It's probably relatively easy to fake whiplash, but there is a chance they will get caught out by the medics.

McKneff

geri1965 wrote: »

It's not irony, it's what insurance is for.

i totally agree with this.

We only have the Ops word that these are bogus claims.
He has not elaborated what injuries were caused.
My daughter was in a relatively minor crash, and had whiplash injury but the worst part was the mental trauma she went through for years when it came to getting into cars and having panic attacks when riding in one.
and no, she didnt sue the driver.

LadyIndecisive

Some insurers take the issue of low speed/velocity accidents and accompanying injury claims more seriously than others. As Dacouch says, he should report his concerns in detail.

Ensure your brother takes some photos of the damage and if he can avoid repairing it for now then he may wish to invite his insurers to inspect it, even though he has no valid claim for the damage.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

From the other point of view maybe two genuine friends have suffered loss due to their "friends" poor or neglient driving and are now seeking a perfectly legitimate legal redress so they are not out of pocket.

You say low speed and impact. Clearly not that low to end up in a field.

mattymoo

Low speed crash into a ditch (or tree for that matter) is worse than a low speed crash with another car. You've hit an immovable object so your vehicle loses all it's momentum in an instant - very possibly causing whiplash type injury.

Not often I agree with Linas but on this occasion I do. OP tell son to notify his insurers and let them handle the matter. Minimum injury payments these days are around £1500 each plus maybe £2-3k legal fees so not cheap.

geri1965_2

lisyloo wrote: »

No it's not, or it shouldn't be.
Insurance is not there for the purpose of providing an income for ambulance chasers and an easy win for fraudsters.
Unfortunately because of the costs of fighting claims, insurers do often "give in" and pay up, rather than fight.

I'm not saying it's there to provide an income for ambulance chasers and fraudsters - how on earth did you get that from my post?

It is there to deal with any claims made against you, either genuine or fraudulent.

I agree with mattymoo & LinasPilibaitisisbatman - it is entirely feasible that the passengers were injured (whether they were or not is another issue). Furthermore, I wonder how slowly the driver was actually going, since he was unable to stop himself going off the road and into a ditch.

lisyloo

I'm not saying it's there to provide an income for ambulance chasers and fraudsters

Sorry.
I was taking the OPs view at face value and assuming he was correct about his bogus friends. I accept that we don't know this is true and they could have suffered genuine injuries and trauma.
I was myself quite a nervous passenger (but not driver) for about 5 years after an accident and I do know people can have injuries at low speed without it being particuarly apparent. So yes you're right we shouldn't take his word at face value.

It is there to deal with any claims made against you, either genuine or fraudulent.

I agree.
I DO however have an issue with the way the system works.
i.e. insurers pay out when it's isn't valid because it's cheaper than fighting in court.

The point being made (rightly or wrongly) was that the fraudulent claim was ONLY being pursued because there was an insurer involved. This may be incorrect, but there are issues in the system in this respect.
I don't know what the answer is.

JS101

it looks like your friends claims will succeed regardless of the legislation. In my experience many insurers back off in the face of legislation and legal costs... opting to settle unless extreme circumstances. They will probably be offered a cheap buck which it sounds like they are after. Maybe come up with something else, violence or threat of witchcraft?

geri1965_2

lisyloo wrote: »

I DO however have an issue with the way the system works.
i.e. insurers pay out when it's isn't valid because it's cheaper than fighting in court.

I've dealt with motor claims on behalf of insurers and it is very difficult. There are many claims I've suspected of being fraudulent, but with medical evidence confirming the injuries there is simply no proof and really I have little option but to pay them. 9 times out of 10, if I repudiate them and they issue proceedings, the solicitors will recommend that they are paid - and all that's happened is that both sides have incurred additional costs.

The medical expert has seen the claimant - I haven't, and any medical expert who is prepared to write a report saying that the claimant is shamming, is not likely to get many instructions from claimant solicitors in the future!

LadyIndecisive

geri1965 wrote: »

I've dealt with motor claims on behalf of insurers and it is very difficult. There are many claims I've suspected of being fraudulent, but with medical evidence confirming the injuries there is simply no proof and really I have little option but to pay them. 9 times out of 10, if I repudiate them and they issue proceedings, the solicitors will recommend that they are paid - and all that's happened is that both sides have incurred additional costs.

The medical expert has seen the claimant - I haven't, and any medical expert who is prepared to write a report saying that the claimant is shamming, is not likely to get many instructions from claimant solicitors in the future!

He/she may get lots of instructions from defendant insurers though