Car insurance claim - likely to deny liability?

freesha

Hi all.

Will try to keep this brief.

On Saturday, while in a drive-thru queue, a guy in a 4x4 reversed into the front of my car. I was stationary at the time. Obviously I contacted my insurers, etc etc. I have never had to deal with this before so unsure of the whole process.

I have received an email from my insurers stating that they have 'written to the third party's insurers, with a view to obtain an admission of liability'. Does this mean he may have denied liability? How can I find out? Will my insurance tell me?

I have 2 independent witnesses that they could contact if he denies it.

Thanks in advance x

TiTheRev

It's just to see if they own up to the claim, or if they'll have to check for CCTV/witnesses etc. It's a bit of a grey area as 'technically' any time you go into the back of someone (even if they reverse into you), it's your fault. You should be far enough away from the car in front to reposition your car and avoid the contact. But most good citizens will hold hands up and allow the claim. The insurance company will keep you informed...

freesha

Thank you for your reply. Yes, if anyone looked at my car, you would think that I have gone into the back of him. There was space between us, can't say exactly how much as it's all a blur, but he went into reverse and cleary didn't see me - most people would make eye contact and wait for you to notice the reverse lights, etc.

I'm relieved you think this is just part of the process. I await further news from them I guess...

DrScotsman

TiTheRev wrote: »

It's just to see if they own up to the claim, or if they'll have to check for CCTV/witnesses etc. It's a bit of a grey area as 'technically' any time you go into the back of someone (even if they reverse into you), it's your fault. You should be far enough away from the car in front to reposition your car and avoid the contact.

That doesn't make any sense. Yes you should be far enough behind someone so that they don't roll back into you on a slight slope, but for all you know the OP was 10 metres behind!

I know you're talking insurance company procedure rather than logic, but I'm pretty sure the "Reverser gets the blame" insurance company mantra trumps the "car behind gets blame" one in this case.

Mankysteve

TiTheRev wrote: »

(even if they reverse into you),

Cough B******s

I take it you were stationary at the time that takes president over everything. If one vehicle hits a stationary vehicle its always the moving vehicles fault.

Harry_Flashman

Mankysteve wrote: »

Cough B******s

Very much agreed

maninthestreet

If someone reverses into a stationary object, they can't blame the stationary object.

freesha

Yes - I was indeed stationary. Probably should have stated that in my OP.

Thanks again for all your replies.