50/50 settlement

czabby

any advice greatly appreciated...my girlfriend had a little scrape before christmas and after much badgering quote me happy have sent her this..

We have spoken to third party insureers and their insured disputes liability, he advises that you flashed him through and when he got level with your vehicle there was not enough room to pass, so you moved forward causing damage to your vehicle.

Third party is willing to settle this on a 50/50 which basically means your both to blame, and im afraid without any independant witness evience tom support your claim this is the best settlement we can hope to gain.

The third party is not claiming and you have not had your vehicle repaired, therefore you could withdraw your claim to save your no claims discount.

Please contact our office on 0844 8911182 within 14 days to let us know how you would like us to proceed with this claim.


now the fella has taken 6 months to make up a story!! there was no flash and she did not move at all but was stationary throughout..she is rightly furious that this has taken so long and the bloke has just outright lied..is 50/50 really the best she can hope for..it seems pretty outrageous..in addition any thoughts on quote me happy as we havent really been impressed...many thanks

ROY47

"We have spoken to third party insureers and their insured disputes liability, he advises that you flashed him through and when he got level with your vehicle there was not enough room to pass, so you moved forward causing damage to your vehicle."

That statement doesn't make sense at all especially these words ..........
when he got level with your vehicle there was not enough room to pass, so you moved forward causing damage to your vehicle. Why would someone deliberately crash into them ?

Also remind them that flashing of the lights is described as thus ........


The Highway Code states: 'Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.'
The Highway Code is basically suggesting that a driver may flash their headlights to warn other drivers of their presence if in a hazardous position, or to warn another person that may not have noticed you.


So their insured driver ignored the highway code and hit your vehicle !

Quentin

The problem she has is there are no witnesses, so who to believe? (Were it to go to court a judge wouldn't be able to decide, so most likely a 50/50)

As the third party isn't claiming, then if she agrees 50/50 she can get 50% of all herw costs back from the third party insurer.

No claim against her own policy will mean she has no excess to pay and her ncd isn't impacted.

If this is a cost effective solution then maybe worth taking.

Buzby

If ever there was an advert for an in-car DVR, this is it. It boils down to credibility.

If you respond quickly to the insurer, saying the response is tosh and you want to proceed on the basis of NIL liability, see if they were trying to shake you.

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

Were it to go to court a judge wouldn't be able to decide, so most likely a 50/50

The judge has to decide what really happened but it can be he decides that both parties are "mistaken" and that option C actually happened (most commonly in narrow lane collisions where both parties claimed to have stopped but the other was the one still moving)

If there are conflicting versions of events the judge will use his own opinion to decide what is most likely to have happened and then apportion blame based on that version of events. A judge cannot say that its "impossible" to judge what actually happened and thus they'll arbitrarily hold each party equally responsible.

To the OP - are you intending to claim? If you arent then this whole matter is somewhat a waste of time as if neither party claims it is closed as a non-fault claim anyway.

If you were intending to claim then in all probability your insurers will not be confident enough in winning a court case and so would settle on a 50/50 basis thus meaning you get 1/2 your excess back but have a fault claim and thus impact NCD

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

......If you were intending to claim then in all probability your insurers will not be confident enough in winning a court case and so would settle on a 50/50 basis thus meaning you get 1/2 your excess back but have a fault claim and thus impact NCD

The OP's friend can keep the NCD intact by claiming 50% of all costs directly off the third party. (ie following the suggestion of her insurer and withdrawing her claim).

(Assuming the cost of repairs makes this a cost effective proposition)

BertTheRaccoon

If you start proceedings, just because the other party has not yet made a claim for damage does not mean they will not issue a counterclaim, so be aware that a reprisal could happen which would impact on your NCD.

Can you elaborate a litte more on what actually happened in this collision?

Finally, it is possible for a judge to conclude that you simply have failed to discharge the burden of proof i.e prove on the balance of probabilities the accident was caused by the negligence of the third party, therefore dismissing your claim and awarding nothing