3rd Party insurers making it difficult.

Crazy_Jamie

Mr_Warren wrote: »

Here are a couple pictures taken from inside the boot. Would appreciate your comments as to the "low velocity impact" of the Audi car. The buckeld rear panel is supposed to be ...flat. Thank you all.

I can do more than simply comment; I can tell you absolutely categorically that no court will classify a collision speed of 15mph to 20mph as an LVI. Whilst speeds do vary in LVI cases, it is generally accepted by courts that for a case to be an LVI the collision speed has to be 5mph or less. If that is indeed the evidence that the Defendant has in relation to speed of impact, I would be absolutely amazed if they pursued any sort of LVI argument.

InsideInsurance

Presumably the TP is claiming they were only going "a mile an hour or so" if they are pursuing a LVI type defence

Mr_Warren_2

What do you make of the damage to the car against a LVI argument??

Crazy_Jamie

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Presumably the TP is claiming they were only going "a mile an hour or so" if they are pursuing a LVI type defence

No doubt, though in light of the damage caused to the OP's vehicle I would be surprised if some sort of engineers report wasn't produced in support of that assertion. Certainly with the evidence as it is thus far I'd be wary of running an LVI argument from the Defendant perspective here.

What do you make of the damage to the car against a LVI argument??

The 'classic' LVI argument involves no damage at all to either vehicle, and indeed when there is no damage to either vehicle LVI arguments are all the stronger. There is then something of a sliding scale whereby the more damage there is caused to the vehicles, the weaker an LVI argument will inherently be. I have no idea how much force is required to cause the damage to the car in this instance, because I am not a forensic engineer, but I would have thought that it would undermine any LVI argument to some degree.

Mr_Warren_2

Thanks all so far. 3rd party have now offered £2100 for whiplash compensation (still apparently not acknowledging liability) but no mention yet of repairs to the car for which our solicitor is stillchasing.

Your thoughts please....accept or .....ask for more?

BertTheRaccoon

The valuation on the whiplash front is impossible to advise on without knowing the contents of the medical report.

I'd expect a prognosis of whiplash with a recovery period of around 9 months for that figure. Assuming there was just whiplash to the neck and not lumbar injuries too?

I'ms surprised your daughter's solicitor hasn't got the show on the road with some court proceedings yet.

Mr_Warren_2

Thanks Lee Jones. The medical report is very close to what you are stating. The solicitor's firm is a no claim no fee practice and I must say, we are down to our second solicitor (this one appears to make things move). It just took so long to get 3rd party to give us details of their insurance (they only gave it under threats of court action).

BertTheRaccoon

Looking at your location, I'd guess you're using someone like Winns?

The fuss you've had with the third party insurers is typical from when the monkey driving the audi has probably said something like "I barely hit her" and with there being probably minimal corresponding damage to the bullet vehicle, the insurers just crack on and start alleging LVI.

As another poster has advised, unless there is no physical damage at all (and even then it's still possible to succeed) the insurers are onto a hiding at court if they carried on with LVI allegations.

Mr_Warren_2

You are pretty much on the ball Lee jones, we are using a local private "No-Win-No-Fee" practice. The young monky driving the car apparently claimed that he was doing 3 paces/hour went he made contact (wouldn't look good with his employer would it??) and car dealership confirmed their damages were minimum.

Our solicitor basically saying that not accepting this offer will create 3 reactions and that judge might also decide to share costs:

- An increased offer from 3rd party insurance or
- Claim that our daughter was already suffering from back problems prior to accident.
- Insist it was an LVI accident.

I can't believe the last 2 points have any chance to succeed but it has now been 16 months since the accident and we are pretty much sick of it.

InsideInsurance

Unless there was anything in the GP/ Medical report about prior back issues that is an unlikely route.

LVI is one and they do just drag things out.

The may not increase their offer but simply make a Part 36 offer to the same value which is simply a way for them to attempt to close down the matter as it limits costs that can be claimed should you reject the offer but the courts decide it was a fair offer