Disputed Car Insurance Claim Advice Please

sueh6

Hi Everyone

Going through a bit of a stressful time at the moment

My son was involved in a collision with an HGV over 2 months ago - there were no independant witnesses. Damage wasn't too bad and no injuries (thankfully) but as he's a young driver the excess on the policy is £700 which we've now paid to the repairer.

The circumstances of the collision were that my son was travelling down a country lane at 7am in the morning going to work. The lane is full of twists and turns and blind corners. Because of this and I'm assuming the narrowness of the road it is weight restricted and nothing over 7.5 tonnes should travel on it - this is clearly signposted. As he negotiated a blind corner he was faced with an oncoming HGV and had nowhere to go (photos prove that neither of the vehicles could have passed each other without damage); he managed to come to a stop but the HGV damaged the front wing and wing mirror. The driver admitted that he was using the road to get to the next town because 'his SatNav' had told him to go that way.

The insurance company told me yesterday that after 2 months the 3rd party are disputing liability. How can this be when had the HGV not been on the road the accident would not have happened? I'm unsure on what grounds they are disputing (as are the insurance company as they haven't yet received the report) but I thought this would have been a simple case.

Can anyone tell me what the process is if a 3rd party disputes a claim even if they should not have been on that road in the first place?

Many thanks

Sue

OnanTheBarbarian

It is a common scenario. People these days just seem incapable of owning up when something is their fault and look for any excuse to evade liability.

Your son needs to establish that the collision arose due to the negligence of the other party. The HGV driver was negligent in using the road that was not suitable for his vehicle (assuming it is over 7.5tonne). But that is not enough to win the claim at court.

Beyond that, you need to establish that the driver was negligent in being unable to bring his vehicle to a stop. What the HGV driver will say is that he stopped and your son didn't. The nature of damage to the vehicles may not prove one story over the other.

Did your son take any pics at the scene?

Does he have legal cover with his car insurance so that the excess can be pursued against the other party?

sueh6

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Did your son take any pics at the scene?

Does he have legal cover with his car insurance so that the excess can be pursued against the other party?

Yes, several pictures all of which have been forwarded to the insurers and yes, he does have legal cover. So in essence and from what you're saying, potentially this could be handled as a 50/50 claim and he would have to pursue it through the legal route to get his excess back?

Thanks.

InsideInsurance

Narrow lane collisions are frequently 50/50 because both sides claim they stopped and the other party didnt.

You really need to see what they say, if they claim they stopped then your son hit a static object (their vehicle) then basically if they should be there become irrelevant.

On the basis they are disputing liability then you should prepare for a split liability situation, you may get slightly better than 50/50 but prepare for the worst and be pleased if you get something better

InsideInsurance

sueh6 wrote: »

potentially this could be handled as a 50/50 claim and he would have to pursue it through the legal route to get his excess back?

If its 50/50 he'd get 50% of his excess back. If he has legal expenses then either his insurers or solicitors appointed by them will do this for him. If he doesnt have LE cover then its a simple thing to do yourself once the insurers have agreed liability

sueh6

Many thanks.

We'll await the confirmation from the insurers as to why they are disputing liability and take it from there. Thanks again

forgotmyname

Just because he may have been over the weight limit doesnt automatically mean its his fault.

"If he hadnt been there the accident would not have happened" But that applies to your son also. If he had taken a different route the accident wouldnt have happened.

They say they stopped and your son crashed into them, You son says the same. Who can prove it?
Ive driven down roads in a HGV that people would think twice of taking a pushbike.
The address i wanted was in the restricted area so not quite the same.

sueh6

forgotmyname wrote: »

Just because he may have been over the weight limit doesnt automatically mean its his fault.

"If he hadnt been there the accident would not have happened" But that applies to your son also. If he had taken a different route the accident wouldnt have happened.

They say they stopped and your son crashed into them, You son says the same. Who can prove it?
Ive driven down roads in a HGV that people would think twice of taking a pushbike.
The address i wanted was in the restricted area so not quite the same.

Agreed, not quite the same. I totally appreciate that if they were using the road for access that's perfectly acceptable but they weren't - they were using it as a cut through. It seems odd to me that the fact that he ignored restriction signs doesn't matter and as for my son, well, he had every right to be using that route.

Actually, you've really helped me as it brought to my mind that I have an email from the company concerned confirming that the driver was travelling at 17 miles per hour when the collision happened (think they mentioned tracker?) and so they can now only claim that the vehicle was stationary.

Thanks

InsideInsurance

sueh6 wrote: »

Agreed, not quite the same. I totally appreciate that if they were using the road for access that's perfectly acceptable but they weren't - they were using it as a cut through. It seems odd to me that the fact that he ignored restriction signs doesn't matter and as for my son, well, he had every right to be using that route.

It in itself isnt enough to make him liable.

To re-repeat the two old cases that I seem to always use:

1) TP was drunk driving his car home. Traffic lights went red so he stopped and passed out. Lights go green and the car behind him (PH) pulls off assuming he was going to move and he went into the back of him. Clearly a drunk shouldnt be driving but the PH is 100% to blame for the accident because he hit a static car and the fact the person was drunk is irrelevant. It could have been someone who's had a heart attack at the wheel

2) There was a stretch of road with 6 street lights. Council employed contractors to cut the pavement back to make the road 1' wider which of cause meant they also needed to resite the lamp posts 1' back too. The council however only instructed the company to move 5 of them and being job worths the company did exactly what they'd been instructed leaving the 6th lamp post 9" into the road. No prizes for guessing that someone drove into the 6th lamp post and sued the council. The case was settled 80/20 against the driver and the only reason why the council had a 20% responsibility was because of their heightened duty of care as a public body

udaysm2209

Reading to the circumstances as told by you, you should be getting a claim as it is not entirely your fault that the accident has happened. You should be in regular contact with your insurer so as to complete the proceedings as soon as possible.