Car Insurance Claim going to court.

InsideInsurance

From your post they disputed liability from the beginning so not sure why it is a surprise to you.

I dealt with motor claims for too many years and so nothing ever sounds odd. It could be anything from saying you braked too hard & for no reason through to saying you rolled/ reversed back into them - you didnt actually give the circumstances to given other possible options though I have seen chalk and cheese type differences between accounts (one said on a main road in a queue of traffic, the other said in a car park)

Assuming there are no independent witnesses your insurers will review the evidence in light of your and their version of events and decide if it is economically sensible to pursue a court case or decide to settle on a split liability basis as there is no way to prove one version of events above the other.

pacovase

We were both driving on a high road and there were minor traffic. I began pulling off slowly so about 5-10 mph at most, she then hit me in the rear and my bumper was damaged. She had accused me of causing the accident, she provided no reason to why I was at fault at the time. You have stated that she may provide her reason as to me rolling back, however my car is an automatic so would that reason still be feasible in her argument?

I am just confused on the fact that she's disputing liability, but has not provided a reason why? I've never been in an accident before, so this is all very new to me.

Thanks for your reply.

InsideInsurance

She may not know your in an automatic, she may not know how automatics work, she may claim you had put the car in N rather than D and thus it could roll back or it may not be that she's alleging you rolled back it is just one of the more common versions of events in these circumstances.

You ultimately need to wait until her insurers confirm the allegations and then discuss these with your insurers and agree a course of action.

Quentin

pacovase wrote: »

I am just confused on the fact that she's disputing liability, but has not provided a reason why? I've never been in an accident before, so this is all very new to me.

She will have provided her side of the story to her insurer, who it seems are supporting her.

You say your insurer has now issued a court claim, so you will find out their defence if they decide to contest the claim.

They will put in their defence long before it gets to a hearing. Your insurer will get a copy.

Crazy_Jamie

Quentin wrote: »

You say your insurer has now issued a court claim, so you will find out their defence if they decide to contest the claim.

They will put in their defence long before it gets to a hearing. Your insurer will get a copy.

As well as the Defence, you will also see the third party's witness statement before the hearing, which may deal with matters in more detail. If it does go to Court that's not really your concern though. You're there to give your account of the incident. It is the job of your legal representative to deal with the other party's account.

vaio

Wouldn’t the pre trial rules designed to avoid cases actually getting to court mean that both sides would need to disclose the basics of their cases before issuing court papers?

That being the case I don’t see how the TP “denying liability” without giving some sort of reasoning is plausible

matthew111

It's not your fault so don't get worried. talk to your insurance company about the process involved, they will surely help you.

Crazy_Jamie

vaio wrote: »

Wouldn’t the pre trial rules designed to avoid cases actually getting to court mean that both sides would need to disclose the basics of their cases before issuing court papers?

Essentially, yes. The pre action protocol encourages an exchange of information between parties in order to help avoid the need for the issuing of proceedings. This should include the Defendant outlining the basis on which liability is denied, even if only briefly.