Car Insurance - other party claim denied in court

[Deleted User]

Wife had an accident about 18 months ago. At the time, we claimed on insurance and then we paid the excess etc and had the car repaired.

Anyway, other party denied liabilty and it ended up with them taking us (inc insurance co) to court over it. This was last week and the judge denied their claim.

Our barrister told us that our insurance werent going to counter-claim, but that the two insurance companies had agreed to go along with the courts decision.

Anyway, does it now mean that since they're claim was denied, I will get all my excess back and this will be a no fault claim?

Or has the court case just proven that it wasnt us at fault entirely? (with the likelihood it will be 50/50?)

Anyone else experienced anything similar?

sarahg1969

Assuming you were represented, were you advised to make a counterclaim for your excess?

[Deleted User]

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Assuming you were represented, were you advised to make a counterclaim for your excess?

This was all arranged by my insurers who provided the barrister to represent. The barrister just said that my insurance company had chosen not to counterclaim.

sarahg1969

Your insurers would have instructed solicitors (who, in turn, would have instructed a barrister for the final hearing). Was your name shown as Defendant on the papers? Did the solicitors send you any letters - such as letters explaining they were acting for you? If so, then you should have been asked if you wanted to claim for your own losses - ie your excess.

Your own claim should have been included within the proceedings if you want to recover it. The solicitors - if representing you - should have asked you.

vaio

There were three decisions the court could come to, OP at fault, third party at fault or some sort of split like 50/50.

What seems to have happened is that the insurance companies have put one claim forward for a court decision, in that case the OP won, this means the TP was at fault and so their insurance company will pay all claims.

If the OP had counter claimed it would have increased the court costs and time so the insurance companies have agreed to apply the decision of the court to the rest of the claim.

The OP should get all his costs back inc his excess and NCB

[Deleted User]

vaio wrote: »

There were three decisions the court could come to, OP at fault, third party at fault or some sort of split like 50/50.

What seems to have happened is that the insurance companies have put one claim forward for a court decision, in that case the OP won, this means the TP was at fault and so their insurance company will pay all claims.

If the OP had counter claimed it would have increased the court costs and time so the insurance companies have agreed to apply the decision of the court to the rest of the claim.

The OP should get all his costs back inc his excess and NCB

Yes. I think thats the case after speaking to insurance companies solicitors.

Seems strange though because in court the judge just denied their claim and that was it. I suppose because its small claims court its balance of probabilites rather than beyound reasonable doubt so judge was less than 51% convinced of their case.

It was a bit dodgy. The other party had 'found' a witness from somewhere who alledgedly saw the incident (but never made himself known at the time).

First time case was adjourned cos the witness didnt show, but they didnt show second time either and had advised the court they had no intention in the future. Looks like the 'mate down the pub' was willing to sign a witness statement but not push the scam as far as showing up in court !!!

Didnt do their cause much good either... :-)