Accident on motorway

AdrianC

Quite simply, no. It doesn't matter how her collision started - it unfolded to involve you. Her insurance pays.

If her theory is correct, then if you were TPFT insured, you'd be paying from your own pocket for your car's damage...

InsideInsurance

No inside knowledge but I would be highly surprised if Network Rail didnt carry their own risks for vehicle damage either directly or with a captive reinsurer/ indemnity deductible

Even if you could prove she is speeding it makes little difference. Whilst it may be a criminal offence to go above 70mph it isnt necessarily negligent - negligence is defined as doing something a reasonable person wouldnt or failing to do something a reasonable person would do. Many reasonable people go above 70mph as long as the road conditions are good

InsideInsurance

AdrianC wrote: »

Quite simply, no. It doesn't matter how her collision started - it unfolded to involve you. Her insurance pays.

If her theory is correct, then if you were TPFT insured, you'd be paying from your own pocket for your car's damage...

Absolute tosh, the OP in a corporate vehicle probably does have TPO cover and so they will be paying for the car out of their pocket.

Her insurance only pays if you can prove negligence as all the others here have said. A blow out is not negligent unless the tyres were evidently worn

REDDDRAGGON

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Her insurance only pays if you can prove negligence as all the others here have said. A blow out is not negligent unless the tyres were evidently worn

Genuine hypothetical question:

If you are driving along next to someone who has a "freak blow out" (no way of predicting it was going to happen), and you have an "accident", while the person who had the blow out didn't behave recklessly or negligently, if they hadn't had the blow out there wouldn't have been an "accident" so surely the "fault" is attached to the person who had the blow out? Surely it's not a 50-50?

(Assuming neither driver was driving negligently nor recklessly, so a genuine accident)

InsideInsurance

REDDDRAGGON wrote: »

Genuine hypothetical question:

If you are driving along next to someone who has a "freak blow out" (no way of predicting it was going to happen), and you have an "accident", while the person who had the blow out didn't behave recklessly or negligently, if they hadn't had the blow out there wouldn't have been an "accident" so surely the "fault" is attached to the person who had the blow out? Surely it's not a 50-50?

(Assuming neither driver was driving negligently nor recklessly, so a genuine accident)

What is your "accident"?

The person who had a freak blowout certainly isnt in any way to blame.

If you are liable for the "accident" depends on how reasonable your actions are.

As an example, a car was travelling downhill on an A road at 80 mph (20 mph over the speed limit) in good road conditions on a fine weather day. Coming up the hill is a bus, travelling slowly because of the gradient.

Without warning a tree at the car side of the road collapses.

The bus stops a couple of feet from the tree. The car is unable to stop in time and rather than hit the trunk steered the car onto the wrong side of the road, went through the branches and hit the stationary bus.

In this case the car was found not to blame for the accident despite hitting the stationary bus because the judge ruled it was not negligent to be speeding given the road conditions and it was reasonable to swerve to the wrong side of the road to avoid hitting the trunk of the fallen tree.

Ralph-y

stop wasting your time on a web forum site that will only give you (well meaning) personal advice.

Speak to your work/company solicitor or choose your own.

This could affect your job , income , work potential for the rest of your life!

Get proper legal advice now! In a way it matters not who was at fault / blame / who's insurance to claim off, the important thing is for you to get better and not suffer financial loss ......... this is what insurance is for.

as for the police , do not keep ringing them. Write a letter asking for a copy of the report they will have done.

Good luck

Ralph:cool:

Bantex_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Quite simply, no. It doesn't matter how her collision started - it unfolded to involve you. Her insurance pays.

If her theory is correct, then if you were TPFT insured, you'd be paying from your own pocket for your car's damage...

You really have no idea how insurance liability works.
Please stop giving wrong advice, it helps nobody.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Third party liability is not necessarily about blame. Things happen, there is damage. Insurance liability is not necessarily apportioned by blame but where there is damage caused to a third party, then the insurers accept the liability for it.

The proper way for this to be dealt with is for the OP's insurers to sort the claim out, and I would normally expect the car that collided with the OP to foot the bill. The accident would not have occurred had it not been for the other vehicle. It is for the other vehicle's insurer to debate whether it was tyre, or maintenance or owner and see whether they could recover the costs.

Put it this way, if a car crashed into your garden wall due to a puncture (let's even say that it was shown to be caused by some litter on the road from some unknown vehicle where there would be no chance of tracing it), would you expect the driver's insurance to pay? Of course you would, it is exactly the sort of situation that is covered. There is no blame, but there is an understanding that there is a risk that such an occurrence happens.

I would not be engaging with the other driver, but I would clearly state that you do not believe that they were personally to blame for the accident but do believe that they are liable for the damage caused and that is what their insurance is there for.

If my insurer accepted a knock for knock and the accident cost me either loss of no claims or increased premium then I would be making a formal complaint and asking what it was that they held me to blame for when the cause was entirely accepted to be due to the consequences of a failure on a third party's vehicle entirely beyond my control.

Bantex_2

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Third party liability is not necessarily about blame. Things happen, there is damage. Insurance liability is not necessarily apportioned by blame but where there is damage caused to a third party, then the insurers accept the liability for it.

The proper way for this to be dealt with is for the OP's insurers to sort the claim out, and I would normally expect the car that collided with the OP to foot the bill. The accident would not have occurred had it not been for the other vehicle. It is for the other vehicle's insurer to debate whether it was tyre, or maintenance or owner and see whether they could recover the costs.

Put it this way, if a car crashed into your garden wall due to a puncture (let's even say that it was shown to be caused by some litter on the road from some unknown vehicle where there would be no chance of tracing it), would you expect the driver's insurance to pay? Of course you would, it is exactly the sort of situation that is covered. There is no blame, but there is an understanding that there is a risk that such an occurrence happens.

I would not be engaging with the other driver, but I would clearly state that you do not believe that they were personally to blame for the accident but do believe that they are liable for the damage caused and that is what their insurance is there for.

If my insurer accepted a knock for knock and the accident cost me either loss of no claims or increased premium then I would be making a formal complaint and asking what it was that they held me to blame for when the cause was entirely accepted to be due to the consequences of a failure on a third party's vehicle entirely beyond my control.

You may expect them to pay, chances are they would not though.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Bantex wrote: »

You may expect them to pay, chances are they would not though.

In driving a car on the public roads, it is a legal requirement of taking a car on the road that you have insurance cover for third party risks.

If your vehicle causes damage, then you are liable and your insurance company has a legal duty to cover your liability. They may be able to recover their losses from other parties (e.g. the tyre manufacturer) but that is their problem. This insurance exists even if it is found that the insurer no longer is liable to the driver, say due to drink invalidating the insurance.