CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM CONFUSED.COM? Part - 2Reply to Thread

Hammyman

£385 is the cost of repairing damaged paint on a rear bumper. If a lorry had hit you as hard as you're claiming, the repair bill would have been a lot more than £385.

jlg1

Hammyman wrote: »

£385 is the cost of repairing damaged paint on a rear bumper. If a lorry had hit you as hard as you're claiming, the repair bill would have been a lot more than £385.

YEs but the thing is we were on a downward slope - the lorry did hiy us 3 times - we seemed to have "bounced" forward - he hit us once - didnt realize and hit us again as we were both moving int he same direction.

I know how this looks but its the way the car took the impact remember he was travelling from a distance (well not much) he was about a cars length behind us but we were both shot forward in out seats - especially the way my head was turned the seatbelt pulled back as I was going forward.

Everyone thinks the same oh 3 hits the car must be a right off etc.. but you have to realize the details of this accident.

J

jlg1

Quentin wrote: »

If you were injured as a passenger, then your wife's insurance will have cover for injury to passengers. (Irrespective of which driver is to blame)

Yes but surely this would have put her premiums up?

I don't think we could have once the wheels were in motion the company we went through CRASH was on a no won no fee basis I think - in fact our costs are covered to date (legally).

Had we have went through her insurance (which thinking back we should have claimed for the car as I'm not still out of pocket waiting on her injuries to be compensated - we would have had an entirely different solicitor who did contact us but we went with CRASH (regrettably. The other side have agreed in advance? to pay her £500 injuries and the £385 back yet solicitor still asking her to go to a medical.

I feel she is being prejudiced against because they believed I was ripping the !!! out of it.

My wife hasnt got a protected bonus - I didn't want to penalize her by claiming off her insurance but I know people do it.

J

atrixblue.-MFR-.

as you were turned leaning over to sort your child i suspect you wasnt wearing your seatbelt! that will be a downer to any PI claim.

when a solicitor says dont run any further with it, thats the time to take what you got.

dacouch

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

as you were turned leaning over to sort your child i suspect you wasnt wearing your seatbelt! that will be a downer to any PI claim.

when a solicitor says dont run any further with it, thats the time to take what you got.

Not wearing your seat belt does not preclude you from making an injury claim. Instead the percentage of how much more injury was caused by the not wearing the seat belt and this is deducted from the claim.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

dacouch wrote: »

Not wearing your seat belt does not preclude you from making an injury claim. Instead the percentage of how much more injury was caused by the not wearing the seat belt and this is deducted from the claim.

i didnt say that he couldnt make a claim looks again nope i didnt.

i said it puts a downer on a PI claim, meaning compo is going to be affected.

gordikin

OP was wearing his seatbelt though, he said so....so why suspect he wasn't?

jlg1

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

as you were turned leaning over to sort your child i suspect you wasnt wearing your seatbelt! that will be a downer to any PI claim.

when a solicitor says dont run any further with it, that's the time to take what you got.

I did have the seatbelt on - I was turned facing him at the time of impact - yes the seatbelt was stretched but I was still turned towards the back rear window.

No one questioned it in court - they just checked to make sure I had it on which I did.

J

vishu

[FONT=&quot]Medical claims audits – Claim Technologies Inc., medical claim audits, reviews and dependent eligibility audit programs provides our clients control and increased efficiency over benefit plan expenses. Medical claims audits for self insured plan sponsors.[/FONT]