Cars reversed into eachother 50/50 but now one is blaming the other.

luwpergwin

Strider590 wrote: »

As the neighbour has gone back on his/her word........

It sounds to me as though he/she reversed off the drive at excess speed and collided with your sister before she'd even left her drive. The map should clearly show that your sisters car hadn't left the driveway..... The impact probably also hurt your sisters neck

Haha... maybe thats what happened:)

Map can determine who is at fault, as unless the driveways are exactly straight across from one another then someone reversed out of turn. From the point of view of your sisters drive, is it further along the direction of intended travel?

Yes drives are directly opposite and collision was in middle of the road.

If she feels there is some way the third party is liable, then she can claim her £170 directly off the third party insurer (if 50/50 is agreed, then she will get £85).

If the neighbour succesfully claims off her insurance, then there will be no excess for her to pay.

I think this will be the way to go, and to maybe explain that both premiums will go up. The neighbour somehow thinks that my sister cant claim off the neighbours insurance if she insists it was my sisters fault. Should my sister claim it was the neighbours fault to make an equal allegation as admitting 50/50 against someone who denies everything is a weaker argument?

Quentin

luwpergwin wrote: »

I think this will be the way to go, and to maybe explain that both premiums will go up. The neighbour somehow thinks that my sister cant claim off the neighbours insurance if she insists it was my sisters fault. Should my sister claim it was the neighbours fault to make an equal allegation as admitting 50/50 against someone who denies everything is a weaker argument?

In cases like this, both sides usually claim the other is at fault. It's not for her to admit any liability at all (her insurance policy will instruct her not to admit any liability).

Let the insurers determine the outcome.

katebl

aliasojo wrote: »

Might be a daft question, but in these days of Google Maps etc and street maps especially, why don't the insurers look online to get an actual view?

Google maps can be up to a few years out of date - had a problem with an insurance company relying on the net's pictures when in actual fact a roundabout had since been changed from 3 lanes to 4!

sassy_one

Both at fault, so it sound like it to me, anyway!

roddydogs

Insurers love "knock for knock"........Why? it means that both parties then have a Claim registered to them, both then have to pay any excess, and both could "lose" any NCB.
Even if youve got "Protected" NCB its still on your record, and if you try to change your insurer you will have to declare it, and it saves them time, especially on small claims.

BLT_2

Strider590 wrote: »

As the neighbour has gone back on his/her word........

It sounds to me as though he/she reversed off the drive at excess speed and collided with your sister before she'd even left her drive. The map should clearly show that your sisters car hadn't left the driveway..... The impact probably also hurt your sisters neck

It sounds to me like your sister had barely got in her car and not even turned the engine over when this lunatic opposite reversed into her at 40mph, damaging the car and also hurting your sisters neck, while she got out to discuss it someone stole her brand new state of the art stereo and sat nav, and she also dropped her purse which contained a 1000 pounds she had only just been given the day before. The neighbours car also struck the electrical circuit box in the garden which resulted in your sisters freezer going off and all the food in it being destroyed.

dacouch

roddydogs wrote: »

Insurers love "knock for knock"........Why? it means that both parties then have a Claim registered to them, both then have to pay any excess, and both could "lose" any NCB.
Even if youve got "Protected" NCB its still on your record, and if you try to change your insurer you will have to declare it, and it saves them time, especially on small claims.

"Knock for Knock" has not existed for many years, it is a completely different principle than 50/50 liability

roddydogs

dacouch wrote: »

"Knock for Knock" has not existed for many years, it is a completely different principle than 50/50 liability

Explain how its different?

9217niall

BLT wrote: »

It sounds to me like your sister had barely got in her car and not even turned the engine over when this lunatic opposite reversed into her at 40mph, damaging the car and also hurting your sisters neck, while she got out to discuss it someone stole her brand new state of the art stereo and sat nav, and she also dropped her purse which contained a 1000 pounds she had only just been given the day before. The neighbours car also struck the electrical circuit box in the garden which resulted in your sisters freezer going off and all the food in it being destroyed.

That's quite funny! If only...

dacouch

roddydogs wrote: »

Explain how its different?

Knock for Knock was an agreement between certain Insurers whereby, if there policyholders had accidents with each other that each Insurer would pay their own drivers costs. They would not pursue each other for the repair costs in the believe it saved money due to reducing administration.

For Insurers such as Pegasus who basically only covered customers for TPF&T it meant they never had to pay the other Insurer (Who they had a knock for knock agreement with) for any damage their clients did. This meant the Insurers who mainly covered comprehensive customers were in effect subsidising the premiums of Insurers such as Pegasus.

It was withdrawn a long time ago.

50/50 is whereby an accident is deemed to be jointly liable for instance a lot of roundabout accidents. Each Insurer pays 50% of their own claim and the other claim. Policyholders can recover 50% of their excess