Car Insurance claim could go to court

sophiec83

Hi all, thanks in advance for reading.

My boyfriend was in a pretty serious car accident 6 weeks ago (paramedics at the scene said they were amazed that he's a) survived and b) hadn't broken both his legs) Anyway, he was on his way home from work when he needed to pull into a lay-by on his right, he slowed down and indicated right and started to turn. The next thing he remembers is the car that had been behind him on the road went ploughing into the side of him (driver's side). He remembers noticing that the guy in the car behind had been really close behind him on the road and the only explanation he can think of is the guy must have been going so fast that he couldn't slow down, so decided to try to overtake him instead.
Anyway, the police were on the scene soon after that and wrote in their report that due to where my bf's car ended up on the road and with all the skid marks that the guy in the other car must have been going in excess of 50mph when he crashed into my bf. This was on a 30mph road by the way. The other guy is claiming that my boyfriend was indicating left instead of right (he wasn't) and despite the police stating in their report and my bf's insurance co establishing that the other guy was at fault, he's now disputing this which means it could end up being really complicated and going to court.
My boyfriend has had his insurance pay out and was advised by the police that the other guy had already been charged with dangerous driving. Do you think there's still a chance this could end with split liability?? The other driver must think he has a case? I'm also worried because he had someone else in the car with him who I expect will back him up but my bf was on his own.

Any comments/advice gratefully received!

Crazy_Jamie

sophiec83 wrote:

Do you think there's still a chance this could end with split liability??

There's always a chance that it could, though from the information that you have provided it seems to be more likely that the other driver will be found to have been at fault.

If the other driver has been charged with dangerous driving it is unlikely that anything will be decided between the insurance companies until after that case has been determined. If the other driver is found guilty of dangerous driving it is almost inevitable that he will be found to have been liable for the accident in terms of the civil case as well. If he is acquitted of dangerous driving liability may still be a live issue in in the civil case, which may necessitate your boyfriend going to court go give evidence. At the same time, however, the police report would still be admissible evidence in the civil trial, which may lead to his insurance company conceding liability. Don't worry too much about the other driver having someone else in the car; witness evidence is not a numbers game, and it doesn't mean the other driver will be believed simply because his passenger is backing him up. Nothing can be guaranteed here but it does sound like your boyfriend is in a strong position in terms of liability.

On a side note, if your boyfriend intends to claim for personal injury he will not be able to do that through his insurance company. If he has legal expenses insurance he can instruct solicitors through that, but otherwise he will have to instruct solicitors on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement. It may well be that is insurance company can refer him to solicitors in any event, but if he doesn't have legal expenses insurance the choice is his as to which solicitor he instructs. Solicitors can now take up to 25% of a Claimant's general damages (the damages for injury), but equally many don't take any at all, so it is worth hunting around for a solicitor that your boyfriend is comfortable with. However, at this stage there is no rush to instruct a solicitor; any competent solicitor would advise that you wait until the outcome of the criminal case anyway if liability is still an issue. Of course you can instruct a solicitor at this stage if you want, but the priority should be for your boyfriend to concentrate on getting better.

sophiec83

Thanks for the quick reply. He has already instructed a solicitor to act for him with regards to his personal injury claim. He was not badly hurt but couldn't work for 4 weeks and won't be able to play cricket at all this season due to damage to his neck and shoulders (he's more upset about this than anything else!)
The way I see it is, even if my boyfriend had been indicating left as the other driver says, why was the other guy still travelling at 50mph?? As a new driver myself I can still hear my instructor's voice telling me that if a car in front of you indicates, you slow down and give them time & room to turn. Seems pretty simple to me.

Thank you again for your helpful response

dacouch

sophiec83 wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply. He has already instructed a solicitor to act for him with regards to his personal injury claim. He was not badly hurt but couldn't work for 4 weeks and won't be able to play cricket at all this season due to damage to his neck and shoulders (he's more upset about this than anything else!)
The way I see it is, even if my boyfriend had been indicating left as the other driver says, why was the other guy still travelling at 50mph?? As a new driver myself I can still hear my instructor's voice telling me that if a car in front of you indicates, you slow down and give them time & room to turn. Seems pretty simple to me.

Thank you again for your helpful response

Trained police offices can tell if a car light was illuminated at the time of a crash. Being an indicator their method may not work as it might not have been lit at the time of impact.

Could be worth checking with the officer in charge if this was checked

sophiec83

Yes, that was something I missed in my previous post. On impact the indicator stick (if that's the word) was jammed in the upwards, indicating to turn right, position and noted in the police report.

Buellguy

One thing that may come up in court though is that BF didn't check that it was clear to make the manoeuvre. The other person may have been speeding etc. but your BF still has to check that nothing else is there BEFORE he carries out any manoeuvre. Not having a go at anyone here, just something that probably will be brought up, ultimately your BF turned into someone's path, even though that person was speeding and (has been charged with) DD.

[Deleted User]

You didn't state exactly what the other guy is going to court for. Is he being prosecuted for dangerous driving and pleading not guilty, i.e. trying to avoid a criminal conviction? In that case it won't affect insurance liability at all, which is a civil matter. Or, is he going to court to argue against the decision of his insurance company to hold him liable, which is a civil matter and may possibly result in the insurance company being forced to offer joint liability?

If your bf's insurance has already decided he was not at fault it is unlikely they would change it later. From their point of view that decision has been made and paid out on now. Don't forget to claim any rises in insurance next year too from the at-fault party.

sophiec83

I understand what you're saying Buellguy but he wasn't turning turning into someone's path, the other driver was behind him. If the other driver had been coming from the other direction then it would be a different matter.

My bf's insurance company has agreed that the other driver was liable and has paid out. He'd bought a new car with the insurance money a couple of weeks ago and thought that was the end of the matter. Now he's received a letter from both the police and his insurance company saying that the other driver is not accepting liability, which means it needs to be investigated further. We don't know if it is definitely going to court at this stage but it does seem like he's not willing to accept the insurance company's decision, which could result in court proceedings

Murphy2011

You have my sympathy, I was parked up waiting for my daughter after school a year ago and a van pulled into my drivers side as he was trying to park in front of me. He admitted liability then but after trying to persuade me to let him repair my vehicle and getting nasty when I informed my insurance company he has now changed his tune and said I pulled out into him!

Essentially my insurers are taking him to court but that is the defence he has put up and essentially it is my word against his.

My phone was broken when the accident occurred and I had to wait for my daughter to arrive with hers to get photos by which time he had already moved the van as it was blocking traffic. I'm hoping that the photos of the damage will demonstrate that I couldn't possibly have driven into him but seriously, this is going to mean time off work etc and all because he is a lying little ****!!!

sussexbhoy

dacouch wrote: »

Trained police offices can tell if a car light was illuminated at the time of a crash. Being an indicator their method may not work as it might not have been lit at the time of impact.

Could be worth checking with the officer in charge if this was checked

If you man a police forensic scientist then yes you're right, if you mean just a trained police officer then no they wouldn't have a clue.
Detailed forensics can show on average 50% of the time if a bulb was illuminated and it's only on incandescent bulbs and tungsten halogen lamps that it works as it's the filament that is examined. It will also work with indicators as the filament doesn't have time to fully cool down between being off and on.