Could really use some advice, "Without Prejudice basis"

arielcohen

Hi

My younger brother (19 years old) was in a car accident last November. He was doing a U turn in the road when a car tried to overtake him on the right and they collided.

To keep it short, I phoned up the other party and asked them that if they didn't make a claim we wouldn't either. He refused this offer so I proceeded to make a claim on the damage to our car, It wasn't much damage but because of the location the assessor decided that the vehicle was a write off, cat d.

I was informed that the other person was making a claim for whiplash, and therefore my insurance told me to deal with a lawyer that specialised in these types of claims. I phoned for updates but was told their was no response from the other side.

A few months later his insurance informed me that because they couldn't get in contact with their insured they would settle on an without prejudice basis, which we accepted.

Now almost nine months later after I thought this claim was in the past I received his statement in the post from my lawyers. According to my brother most of what his statement says are lies, for example seeing my brother turning onto the road 200 meters away which is not possible even from 100 meters away.

My legal team has given me 14 days to respond or they will settle liability as 50/50. Our main concern is to minimize the effect this claim would have on my brothers insurance as premiums are high enough as they are, and we will have to renew within the next two months.

If it does come to a 50/50 split (Its only our word against his, don't know if our lawyers will want to pursue it) will that only be for his claim or will he be able to claim the 50% back from our insurance after his insurance settled without prejudice basis.

At this moment we haven't been informed how real his whiplash is, no documents or proof from doctors and i still don't know the amount he is claiming for the damage to his car.

When I spoke to this person on the phone I got the feeling that he was going to milk the claim for as much as he possibly could (I assume it's because he thinks my brother is an easy target) and hes claiming whiplash even though in his statement he said he was travelling at 10-15mph prior to the collision.

I know I said I would keep it short, guess I forgot how much this upset me until I started writing it down.

Thanks for any help you can provide

Kilty_2

Sounds about right to me - I was involved in a similar claim where my insurer settled against me due to not wanting to pursue the case in court. Third party claimed for whiplash for an accident which involved two cars coming together side to side at < 15MPH.

Hammyman

arielcohen wrote: »

Hi

My younger brother (19 years old) was in a car accident last November. He was doing a U turn in the road when a car tried to overtake him on the right and they collided.

Your brother had a duty of care to ensure that nobody would do that so should not have done it in the presence of other vehicles.

hes claiming whiplash even though in his statement he said he was travelling at 10-15mph prior to the collision.

You can get whiplash at 10-15 MPH.

Kilty_2

Hammyman wrote: »

Your brother had a duty of care to ensure that nobody would do that so should not have done it in the presence of other vehicles.



You can get whiplash at 10-15 MPH.

Surely if the third party was overtaking a vehicle clearly slowing down and signalling to turn right then they were negligent?

marlot

Is it really worth fighting?

Doesn't matter whether you're found 10% liable or 50% liable, its still a claim against you.

zappahey

Kilty wrote: »

Surely if the third party was overtaking a vehicle clearly slowing down and signalling to turn right then they were negligent?

I don't see any mention of signalling in the OP

spiro

On what basis do you say "for example seeing my brother turning onto the road 200 meters away which is not possible even from 100 meters away."?

Hammyman

Kilty wrote: »

Surely if the third party was overtaking a vehicle clearly slowing down and signalling to turn right then they were negligent?

To do a U turn on pretty much most roads in the UK other than dual carriageways, you would have to move to the very left hand side. So basically you are in the position a parked car would be when going to move off or carrying out a 3 point turn - on the left side of the lane with your right indicator on. And what did you learn when you did your driving lessons in regards to doing 3 point turns?

arielcohen

I should have said 3 point turn instead of a U turn, Their was space to perform the turn as the road is very wide and at the point he was attempting to make the turn their is no pavement (its an entrance to the park for the lawnmowers I think) thefore giving more space to make the turn.

I may have wrongly assumed that whiplash is unlikely to happen when a car is travelling at 10-15mph. I'm sure you can understand though that their is a stigma to whiplash that shouts fraud which gives people who genuinely suffer from this symptom a bad name, at least that was my first instinct when this person informed me he was going to make that claim.

According to the other persons statement, he said he saw my brother turn from a side road onto the road where the accident occurred 200 meters away, he also said he saw my brother signal right to join the road but instead turned left (I guess in an attempt to damage my brothers credibility as a driver). Like I said before most of his statement my brother strongly disagrees with, of course I believe him but clearly I am biased though from 200 meters from the side road it is impossible to see the road let alone a signal because of the curvature of the road. I'm not sure it could even be managed from 100 meters away.

When my brother was performing the turn in the road, he told me he used a right signal. Though the other party denies seeing it and its his word against my brothers.

The reason why the % of liability makes a difference is because we have though about paying our insurance back so that it will have less effect on our premiums. So in the worst case scenario that his claim cannot be dis proven we would try to minimize the amount our insurance would pay out to him in fighting over the % of liability and checking up his claims of whiplash. None of which seems to be in our insurance best interest as they would prefer to resolve the claim as 50/50 rather then spend money on lawyers to fight the claim.

In his statement he tries to attack my brothers credability quite openly he said that after the accident my brother was "really confused and was lost. He seemed young and I have a suspicion that he was either a new driver or did not have a license to drive"

later he claims that my offer to settle the matter without making a claim (thought still informing the insurance) "PROVES that he knew he was at fault but was trying to convince me so a claim in not made on his policy" He goes on to say that our insurance should check if my brother is even on the policy.

My brother has got a driving license and is insured on the policy and his attempt insinuate that he hasn't got a license or was driving uninsured annoys me further.

spiro

This sentence "To keep it short, I phoned up the other party and asked them that if they didn't make a claim we wouldn't either. " implies you and therefore your brother did not want this going through your insurance. Also you were not asking the other driver, who you say is at fault, to pay for the damage to your car. If you take these 2 pieces of information together it could imply to a third party (including us) that (a) you did not want to involve insurance for whatever reason and (b) you did not think the other driver was at fault. He may come to the same view and is therefore trying to claim from you.

In terms of the issue of visibility, I would park car (assuming it safe) on the left hand side of the road were your brother would have started the turn from and then walk down the road in the direction the other car was coming from. At 50m, 100m, 150m and 200m stand in the middle of the left hand side of the road and see if you can see the parked car. If it is clear that you cant see it (which is what you say), take photos at the various distances and send them to your insurance company. Anything you can do to disprove what the other party has said will help you case.

50/50 does not mean £50/£50 it normally means knock for knock, your insurance pays for your car, their insurance pays for their car. Paying the money back will not reduce next years premium because an accident has happened and blame will be allocated which will then have to be declared for the next 3(?) years.

pendulum

From reading what has happened, I think a 50/50 settlement is a good one. As Hammyman says, if he was positioned to the left then began his U-turn, that's basically the same as pulling out from the side of the road in to the path of another car. He's a bit fortunate not to be found 100% liable.