Cyclist and car accident claim

prudryden

The question on insurance, forget tax (that is irrelevant to this thread) is a valid one for this thread. If the OP had liability insurance, which is a wise investment these days of litigation, he wouldn't have this worry about how he may pay for the damage or even worse - someone loses a limb or life. You could conceivably have your future earnings attached for a long time.

courtjester

Astaroth wrote:

I very much disagree with your first comment - certainly disputes are rarely based on legislative law however they are most certainly based on common law (aka case law). The court is there to decide on which version of events the FACTs are (in their opinion) and then relate these to common law to decide on the verdict - or of cause come up with the reasoning of why the previous/ higher court cases the defence/ claimant are quoting are not the same as the case being presented.

I have to ask..... having worked in insurance for 8-9 years for 4 different insurance companies and not a single one of them had commercial agreements with any other insurer who are all these insurers with commercial agreements on how liability is to be settled? There are agreements like RIPE to reduce sending paperwork after liability is established, there is the MOU to reduce court fees by excluding their own costs in the court case etc but none of these affect the actual decisions on liability.

Fair enough - you're entitled to disagree

Of course, I agree with you that all cases are governed essentially by law, common or otherwise, my point being that in cases like this, it is the facts that are often in dispute rather than the law and as you rightly say, the court will be called upon to decide who to believe.

As to sharing agreements, are knock for knock sharing agreements between motor insurers no longer used ?

nadnad

no insurers no longer use knock for knock.

Mrs_pbradley936

nadnad wrote:

no insurers no longer use knock for knock.

Does that mean there will always be someone to blame? How do they sort out a "six of one and half a dozen of the other" type of claim?

blondybutterkiss

It is illegal to overtake at a junction!
Cyclist is right..... motorist wrong, (motorist owes cyclist duty of care)
SIMPLE AS THAT!

Next case

mattymoo

pbradley936 wrote:

Does that mean there will always be someone to blame? How do they sort out a "six of one and half a dozen of the other" type of claim?

The demise of the knock for knock agreement (and the lesser known Third Party Sharing Agreements) came about in the early 90's with the rise of the telephone based (and later internet) insurers like Direct Line and Churchill.

These companies cherry pick the best risks - drivers with no convictions, no modified cars, safe jobs and living in safe areas. They felt the K for K agreements would work against them since their clients would be less likely to be at fault so the "swings and roundabouts" of K4K would never swing in their favour.

By the mid 90's K4K was gone. Insurers pursue their losses against each other. 50/50 type situations will still be pursued particularly if one insurer paid out say £3,000 and the other £500, then £1,500 and £250 is owed. A net payment of £1,250 is normally made in these cases.

The only thing that does muddy the water is where insurers are owned by the same firm - e.g. Direct Line / Churchill and Elephant / Admiral. Not sure what happens there because I got out of claims in 1995.

courtjester

Highly enlightening , thanks.

Mind you all the good people have got out of insurance now...