Why do I have to admit fault when it wasnt my fault?!?

lindsaygalaxy

The other week we were exitinging onto a one way road and had to join a queue of traffic, but where i had pulled out I was at an angle. After about 30 seconds of waiting i was suddenly hit by another drive (driver front side - headlight area). She wasnt even on the road (which you can see for quite a way) when I had pulled out onto the road.

the insurance company called today (SW) and said that I have to prove how long I was there for (which i cant as no one stopped) as she gets rihgt of way being on the main road (even though as I tried to explain to them I was fully on the road and she wasnt in sight when I was) and I was stationary due to the queue. They say if she says I pulled out on her I can't disprove it she will win and it will be my fault.

Is this right? I dont see how she can just lie and win!

InsideInsurance

The civil courts work on the basis of the balance of probability. In the case of there being two conflicting versions of events with physical evidence not supporting one side or the other its basically who the judge believes/ which is more likely.

So, on one side we have someone saying that they were already half way on the road and stationary and another vehicle failed to brake in time and hit a stationary object.

On the other we have someone who says they were correctly proceeding along the road and someone failed to give way and tried to nip out when there wasnt sufficient a gap to do so.

It is more likely that someone missjudges a moving vehicle than someone hits a stationary large object and so its leaning in the other parties favour.

Do you have a photo of the damage to your vehicle? Are there any scrapes to the paint or just a dent? If there are scratches did they move towards the front or rear of your car?

There is a slim chance you can make a weak argument based on the damage. They will probably reject it at which point a 50/50 settlement would be the next offer based on two conflicting versions and no witnesses to confirm one over the other but even that is going to be pushing it.

lindsaygalaxy

There are scratches (by and beyond the wheel arch) and the force knocked the bumper off). we were 3/4 of the way turned to be straight. she tried to get pass to where it goes to 2 lanes (which it wasnt yet) but I guess couldnt fit through as she thought so caught the front of my car. Unfortunatly we are with the same insurance company. They said if she gives a different version and says we pulled out on her (which isnt possible considering the length of the road and she wasnt on it - but no witnesses!) then we will be at fault.

InsideInsurance

Insurers need to have processes for "blue on blue" type accidents to ensure policyholders rights aren't negatively impacted due to the fact that both parties are insured by the same company. Certainly in my day the claims were handled in exactly the same way (other than if both claims were allocated to the same office then one would be transferred to a different office) and letters were literally exchanged in the same way as if it had been another insurer.

The only difference was if an agreement couldnt be reached then rather than litigating and going infront of a judge then both files would be passed to an internal barrister who would review both files, speak to people if necessary and act as the arbitrator.

Ultimately your insurers have the right to settle a claim as they see fit even if you dont agree (though a few wont take this route). You really need to convince your file handler of the facts. Obviously one point is the "it isnt possible for you to pull out on her" and they can do a location report if necessary (though these days Google Maps & Street view tend do do well enough). Have to admit I dont understand why it isnt possible for it to be you pulling out but then thats why you need to explain it better (to your insurers)

cajef

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

Is this right? I dont see how she can just lie and win!

Welcome to the real world, unfortunately if there is no witness to corroborate your version it is your word against theirs and if they lie it will be very difficult to prove they were at fault.

lindsaygalaxy

Thank you for your help. For me to have been pulling out on her and hitting her at where her car damage was, i would have had to had been coming straight out at her and to not to have seen her, and her going at a fast speed. If this was the case (which it wasnt) she would have then hit the queue of traffic. I guess its a bit like a T juntion. If I had just pulled out and gone straight into her, how are there scratch marks along my car.

lindsaygalaxy

The only witness I have is my partner in the car at the time. But he doesnt count, even though he would be the first to say if I had just pulled out and hit her car!

deutsch

there was traffic? and no one stopped, no one else could vouch? were the police called to the scene?

lindsaygalaxy

No one stopped. A police car even drove past!

longtimelurkersam

I feel for you. I am in a similar position where I was performing a turn in the road in a bright yellow ex-AA van and someone entered the road 3 lamposts away, continued to proceed and then drove into me!

Luckily I have a fixed DVR (digital video recorder) in the windscreen and it recorded all of it from the moment I started the manoeuvre, showing they were not in view to the moment of impact. I am just waiting to see if my insurers agree with my intrepretation.

I bought a £30 version from 7 day shop following a recommendation from the motoring board, now have replaced with a more subtle and slightly more expensive but better quality etc.

You see all those crazy Russian road accidents on YouTube and you realise that it seems that the Russian market for them is huge.

System

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

I guess its a bit like a T juntion. If I had just pulled out and gone straight into her, how are there scratch marks along my car.

That's not what you originally said, or inferred, was was her version.
I took your post to mean that she hit you, at a glancing angle, because you had pulled out in front of her when she was too close to stop.

Both versions are tenable, but the damage might well be the same. She could be closing on you, either:
1) you were stationary, she hit you, or
2) you were both moving, but you had pulled out in front of her.

It happens all the time, usually because both parties see what is happening, but one hopes to intimidate the other by not pulling back.
When a collision happens, the odds are in favour of the one technically in the right (her).