Insurance help - Who decides fault?

olly300

MikeyTen4 wrote: »

Again naively, I'd been under the impression that if she, the policy holder, had called her insurers on a recorded line and stated she was at fault, then that would be it... if she did do that, which I'm now thinking she might well not have. But I guess this is all a lesson for me. A prospectively very expensive lesson.

When someone drove into the back of me about 2 years ago she later sent me an email clearly stating it was her fault.

My insurer wasn't interested in the email.

They just wanted independent witnesses to back me up. However even if they get them they don't contact them unless the other side contests what happens.

If you look at the T&Cs of your insurance policy it will state something like you cannot admit liability for an accident.

In addition there are cases which you can find online that make it clear that a court would not take the admission of fault from someone being involved in an accident into consideration.

MikeyTen4 wrote: »

On the plus side, that's the first good news I've had regarding the 50/50 situation. Admiral seemed to say otherwise, but maybe I misunderstood. anything is better than nothing. It's only just sunk in that regardless I've lost £650 I paid for my policy just 3 weeks ago though.

You have lost nothing.

If you have another accident this year you are still covered. If you cancel the policy due to them paying out you get nothing back.

MikeyTen4

Quentin -

You won't have lost £650 if you intend getting another car, as long as it is acceptable to your insurer (check with them before you buy it), then you will be able to put it on the policy (there may be a premium adjustment up or down depending on the model, plus an admin charge).

olly300 -

If you have another accident this year you are still covered. If you cancel the policy due to them paying out you get nothing back.

That's interesting to know, cheers. I had thought this was possibly how it worked, but then somewhere along the line, talking to other people, I'd picked up the idea that if my car is a write-off, then the policy will end that's that. But I guess I just don't know yet, and it's definitely worth keeping in mind that it might not be as bleak.

There is a possibility I might need to cancel it since I might not be able to replace the car, dependent on the outcome. But we'll see.

Quentin -

IS your car roadworthy? If so you could consider putting up with the damage if it is just cosmetic and is more economic than a write off (esp. if you will only receive a proportion of its value)

It's in one piece and it drives fine, bar the odd scrape of the passenger side front wheel if I go over a speed bump! But it's not road legal since it's now missing the front left hand headlight and indicator. I've had it assessed by Nationwide Accident Repair, and they've told me the same. the quote came to just over £2000. It's a 1997 P reg Toyota Celica that's lovely to drive and has flown through it's last 3 MOTs... but it's only worth about £700 due to it's age and milage (about 115k).

InsideInsurance - That's all really interesting to know, thanks a lot. definitely some lessons being learnt here about the way all of this works. But regarding...

If the TP has been honest then it will quickly be resolved.

... this is what I'm wondering about now, since she seems to suddenyl be claiming damage done to an area of the car I'm 99% certain I didn't touch. The physics just don't add up either, so I think she's describing it differently to how I am. Weirdly not the actual accident, but the 'moving the cars apart' immediately afterwards.

olly300 -

When someone drove into the back of me about 2 years ago she later sent me an email clearly stating it was her fault.

My insurer wasn't interested in the email.

They just wanted independent witnesses to back me up. However even if they get them they don't contact them unless the other side contests what happens.

If you look at the T&Cs of your insurance policy it will state something like you cannot admit liability for an accident.

In addition there are cases which you can find online that make it clear that a court would not take the admission of fault from someone being involved in an accident into consideration.

All very interesting again, and definitely not what I'd expected. Naivety again I guess!

I guess I just don't know what will happen now, but I have to say I'm kicking myself that I didn't snap out of it, take photos immediately, and get witness details at the time. Thanks a ton for all of this, again, it's a massive help just to learn a bit more about where I might stand and how it will be looked at.

Quentin

From what you say it will definitely be a write off.

If you wish you will be able to buy it off the insurer for a nominal sum (deducted from the settlement - assuming the other side accept full liability).

If you can do the repairs yourself with second hand parts, then again you may just want to do this (if liability ends up split), and get a proportion of the cost of repairs off the third party. (Should any insurer inspect it and declare it a write off then it will be marked as one).

If the other side are successful in any claim against you which is paid by your insurer and you cancel the policy, then you won't get any refund.

Some comprehensive policies do end after a write off is paid by the insurer, but your TPFT policy won't.

System

Quentin wrote: »

Your insurer wouldn't have paid out unless they thought your driver was 100% to blame - why would they?

Ha ha! They pay out because they can't be bothered arguing or investigating cases, it's cheaper just to hand over the money.

In our case the police investigated skid marks, took measurements, gave us an investigation number, said they were considering prosecuting the other driver, but decided not to as not worth while.
The insurance company did no investigation beyond taking statements, and decided we were at fault because our van was emerging from a side road, and the other driver was going fast cutting a corner on the wrong side of the road.

InsideInsurance

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Ha ha! They pay out because they can't be bothered arguing or investigating cases, it's cheaper just to hand over the money.

There is a question of economics in any case but being realistic with the average claim including injury (which an increasing proportion include) being the best part of £10,000 these days then the difference between admitting full liability and arguing liability represents a fair amount of internal staffs time.

You must also remember that criminal law and civil law sees matters differently. A drunk falls asleep at the wheel at traffic lights, the lights go green and you pull away assuming that they will and so go into the back of them. Criminal law prosecutes the driver in front for drink driving. Civil law sees you as being the liable party as you've hit a stationary vehicle.