Advice on car crash & insurance liability.

MrsE_2

I posted on here about my DD car accident & the thread ended up locked as my DD was accused of being an ambulance chaser (or a potential one).

So I can't ask on that thread.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1693411&highlight=

The reason the crash occurred is a woman driving in the opposite direction turned across my DD path to turn right into a road off the main road. The woman did not appear to see my DD at all & sat in the car with the doors & windows shut (appeared to be in shock) for a few minutes after the accident.
She then begged my DD not to inform her husband (via the details exchange) as it was his company car she had just smashed.

Anyway fast forward. It was an age before the lady instructed her insurance firm that an accident had happened & my DDs insurance cannot (& do not appear to be very proactive about) getting a response of the liability from this ladies insurers.
They say they have 90 days to reply to every letter, but when do they stop writing & take action? The guy on the phone was a bit of an idiot & I could get a straight answer about anything off him.
He said they may go 50:50 if neither party admits liability, I said what did we pay the legal cover for if not to fight such things?
He said it was up to them to decide the best way to proceed.

I said what about CCTV? I said I'm guessing there is some at that spot & that as my DD has nothing to hide what if she could get the CCTV footage showing this lady turning across oncoming traffic?
He said OK ask the police or council if there is any.

So we phoned the police (who were very nice) but said its up to your insurers legal dept to do this & ask for this, that they would only release this sort of stuff to them. He suggested she try the CAB board if she wasn't getting anywhere with her insurance.

Anyone had anything similar?

Why should she go 50:50 & pay extra insurance next year because this woman did not stop to give way to oncoming traffic?

jeannieblue

Bo11ocks Sue - sorry, but that is.

You pay legal cover - which quite alot added on to your insurance and you expect them (as they are paid!) to act on your behalf - not sit on their backsides and go 'oh well, its not my car'..... And why on earth would you go 'ok its 50/50, even tho she pulled across in front of me'... Why??? Why accept 50/50 when it wasn't??? Sorry, but I've got my gander up now.... not a pretty sight

MrsE - there has to some 'org' that oversees car insurance tw1ts. I recommend a letter, call, email etc to them. Can you imagine these idiots trying this stunt in another country? They would be laughed at.

iamana1ias

This would probably get better answers if posted on the insurance board

jeannieblue

Ok Sue.
I get your point and sorry to sound off at you...

But why on earth should anyone have to have someone cut across them, causing damage and then get away with it? It goes 50/50???

We might as well not bother with insurance then. I think MrsE should pursue or get the lazy beggars at the insurance company to pursue CCTV evidence if that is what it takes. And the cost? Who cares, the insurance companies can afford it and if it proves your innocence then it is priceless. We all (most of us) pay the extra for legal cover - year after blasted year - surely it is ok to expect some support when you need it? Or is it me???

I did warn you that my gander was up...

MrsE_2

SueSueSue wrote: »

They havent said that but what exactly do you think they can do if no evidence exists about liability and both parties say different. Spend thousands on a court case so a judge can turn round and say no evidence so 50/50. If the OP has witnesses or a compelling case it will be pursued but in the event its their word against the other party it isnt reasonable to expect the insurer to go to court with no case.

And they wouldnt. Any ombudsman would simply agree that in the absence of evidence to decide the claim and different version of events that 50/50 was fair.

Its a sad part of life and insurance.

I do understand about the monet a case costs & all, but thats why we're suggesting they look at the CCTV footage.

iamana1ias

jeannieblue wrote: »

We might as well not bother with insurance then. I think MrsE should pursue or get the lazy beggars at the insurance company to pursue CCTV evidence if that is what it takes. And the cost? Who cares, the insurance companies can afford it and if it proves your innocence then it is priceless. We all (most of us) pay the extra for legal cover - year after blasted year - surely it is ok to expect some support when you need it? Or is it me???

I did warn you that my gander was up...

No they can't! Not unless they quadruple everyone's premiums to pay for lawyers to fight each and every case.

Insurance companies are more experienced at handling claims than any individual, and have a responsibility to everyone to mitigate claims. In the original thread we couldn't prove that the OP's daughter was completely without fault. CCTV would indeed show what happened and the insurers would ask for that if they thought they had a strong case.

You can't pay £20 a year and then demand that they take up every case you want them to! :rotfl::rotfl:

iamana1ias

MrsE wrote: »

I do understand about the monet a case costs & all, but thats why we're suggesting they look at the CCTV footage.

Was it an original?

MrsE_2

iamana1ias wrote: »

Was it an original?

41 posts & your an expert on MSE protocol:rolleyes:

We don't make big issues over typos;)

Attacking grammar or spelling is also considered bad form.

Rolandtheroadie

If I was driving along, someone turned across my path and I was unable to avoid them, I would fight it tooth and nail to ensure I wasnt held even partially accountable.
As long as I was sober, with a totally road legal car and had done everything in my power to avoid the collision, I'd exhaust every avenue.
In my (flawed?) opinion, on the face of it, they're to blame. Surely it is up to them to prove shared blame.

iamana1ias

MrsE wrote: »

41 posts & your an expert on MSE protocol:rolleyes:

I'm not new - the username should have told you that

MrsE wrote: »

We don't make big issues over typos;)

Attacking grammar or spelling is also considered bad form.

Just as well. It would take a fair bit of time to sort out almost 10k of yours Wouldn't surprise me if your daughter did have a Monet in a case in her car.

MrsE_2

scotsman4th wrote: »

If I was driving along, someone turned across my path and I was unable to avoid them, I would fight it tooth and nail to ensure I wasnt held even partially accountable.
As long as I was sober, with a totally road legal car and had done everything in my power to avoid the collision, I'd exhaust every avenue.
In my (flawed?) opinion, on the face of it, they're to blame. Surely it is up to them to prove shared blame.

Thats how we feel:cool:

My DH had an accident a few years ago & was in a similar situation, the insurers wanted him to agree ti go 50:50 but he wouldn't, took 2 years but the other insurers agreed liability in the end.

A lorry driver after perceiving my DH had deliberately cut him up, chased him down the road (DH didn't even realised the guy was p1ssed off & following him) until he veered into the side of his car with the lorry.

DH took the keys out of his lorry & called the police as he thought he guy must be drunk or drugged up to drive like that, the guy denied it was deliberate, but said to the policewoman it was an accident (so he admitted it was his fault). He then changed his story & it took 2 years to sort out. The insurance wouldn't pursue the policewoman for her statement & wanted him to admit 50:50, but he wouldn't. He's a cabbie & his premiums increased hugely in the time.
He got proactive & tracked the WPC down & only then when she sent them her version of events would the insurance go to the other insurers with the evidence & they admitted liability.

But without a police statement he would have been ****ed & even with that it still took nearly 2 years:rolleyes: