Car insurance - blame game!

jlh7

Sorry for long post, any help or advice much appreciated!

Last February, I had a bit of a prang in my car. Basically, both my car and the other party were parked next to each other, both facing forward in spaces. I had reversed backwards and round to the left, and I was just about to start moving forwards to to the right to get out of the space and onto the road... When I was about to move forward, the car next to me put their reverse lights on and reversed at speed - doing an extensive amount of damage to my rear passenger door and chassis. I know the people who hit me, and I saw them get into the car, start talking, and I don't think the driver even looked before reversing. :mad:

The reason I am annoyed is that they are trying to blame me for the incident, saying my lights weren't on and they didn't see me (but I absolutely remember after the hit, I sat in the car staring at the dashboard and they were definately on).

I also know the witness, who said that she did not see the whole thing, as she was gettting into her car, and that she was not sure my lights were on, but that the other party definately started reversing like a bat out of hell.

So the other party refuse to accept it is their fault, and I had a call from my insurance company to ask if I would accept 50/50. I've been really unlucky with car insurance in the past (my car was badly damaged in a hit and run 4 years ago, so lost no claims and had a high excess to pay through no fault of my own, and for me to be losing most of my no claims again is a rage inducing prospect).

Basically, I don't want to accept 50/50, although my insurer thinks this is a fair deal... Is the only thing left to do to go through court (which is probably a little pointless) or is this something I need to just to get over (I suspect it is)... I wouldn't mind if I felt I was in some way at blame, but I reallllly don't accept that it's my fault.

Thanks for humouring me (or not!)

InsideInsurance

What exactly is the TPs version of events? You simply not having lights on doesnt sound reason enough to hold you 50% liable - I assume they are alleging that you were still reversing at the same time in which case the 50/50 would make sense.

Did the witness give a statement? Do they know both parties or just you? Do they say you were stationary or still moving?

jlh7

TP weren't sure if I was reversing - I had stopped to turn my wheels before pulling off, as quite tight to get out. Regardless of whether my lights were on or not, there is a massive great security light at the place in question, and that illuminates everything within a mile I think!

The witness (known to both myself and TP) did give a statement. I've not really asked her too much about it, but she did say that she didn't see very much and that she just saw the TP car come shooting backwards.

Unfortunately, there is no CCTV coverage or anything, and I wish I had a camera (or black box) in my car as I it would save a lot of money on excesses and increased insurance costs!

InsideInsurance

If they're not sure what you were doing then clearly they arent paying proper attention, I'd tell your insurers to reject the offer and press for a full acceptance of liab by the TP. Your vehicle was a static object to be seen and avoided, the lights issue is a non-issue

magpiecottage

Unless you were taking part in a carnival procession or are a poser, it seems unlikely that you would have lights on the side of your car anyway.

On the other hand, unless it was very old (think pre 1980) a car reversing into you would have a reversing light - at least until it was crashed into your door.

So if the TP is claiming he could not see you because lights that should have been on were not on the he seems to actually saying the accident was due to a fault with his own vehicle.

amiehall

There is no way I would accept any liability if someone hit my stationary car whether I was stopped behind them or not! If these are people that you know, it's even worse that they are behaving like this. If one car is stopped and the other is moving, it seems quite obvious that they hit you.

studley

This is a particular type of insurance fraud which the industry is quite happy with:

Essentially the TP is lying to prevent the loss of their own NCB, however you look at it that is still fraud

You know it's what they are doing, so does your insurer, as no doubt does his, but it limits their losses so they support it. Also when you consider that many Insurance companies outsource their claims management it is definitely in the interest of those dealing with the claim to say it was your fault even if they know it wasn't

did you know that 1 in six TP claimants will walk away from their claim, 3 in six will settle out of court, and 1 in six either lose in court of have to pay their own costs? And that does not include those who achieve a split liability in court for something that was far from their fault.

One of the ways to spot this is you don't mention that they are claiming against you for their damage, they probably aren't as they lose the NCB until the case is settled

What you do is up to you, however if your car has been repaired or your insurer will pay for the repairs then all that is left is the squabbling over liability, your excess and your increased premium which you can claim against them for - I'd hold out if i could afford to

In fact I'm in a similar situation and am holding out, my car was a complete write off but with TPFT, I couldn't travel to work so lost my job and then life fell to bits because of it - but hey ho, I'm alive

InsideInsurance

studley wrote: »

This is a particular type of insurance fraud which the industry is quite happy with:

Essentially the TP is lying to prevent the loss of their own NCB, however you look at it that is still fraud

By no means is it a case that the TP is lying/ committing fraud. For one, it is well known that if you get different people to recall the circumstances of anything that you will get different accounts. This isnt necessarily because people are lying but simply because they have different points of view (literal), priorities, points of interest etc. Add to that the stress of an accident and the fact you are typically asking them to recall it some time after the incident and it is inevitable that differences exist.

More than once I had cases where there were multiple independent witnesses but the two parties in the crash and the two witnesses all came up with different versions of events

In this case the TP is going for a 50/50 settlement and so your theory of them trying to preserve their NCD is evidently wrong as they'd lose it just the same as if it is was 100% their fault.

studley

from the OP:
"I had a call from my insurance company to ask if I would accept 50/50"

That is probably a negotiating position that their own insurer or the TP insurer wants to take to clear it from their books, it does not mean the TP or their insurer are accepting 50/50 and certainly does not mean the TP have accepted any liability themselves as yet

in a case like this the negotiations of liability are between insurers if the TP had accepted any liability on their statement then there would be no negotiation

it does not seem that the TP have made a claim so stand to get nothing regardless of the liability so they personally are only going to be concerned with their NCD, the TP insurer will themselves be trying to limit their own payout in full knowledge that with the collision as described by the OP they have no leg to stand on - that being a reversing car hit the side of OP's car - could only have been the OP's fault if the OP was in the habit of driving sideways