Knocked off my bike

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The civil matter of settling insurance claims normally is done without even issuing court proceedings and as such is much quicker. Assuming the OP doesnt have injuries which need time to heal etc before quantum can be set the probability is that civil is settled before criminal.

Where this isnt the case is where the criminal side is investigating something that is key to the civil case too and the insurers decide to await the criminal case as its easier to do so than to try and investigate the same themselves.

Take this example, Driver A is drunk and whilst waiting at a red traffic light falls asleep at the wheel. Driver B is waiting behind A, sees the light go green and pulls away assuming A will be doing the same and goes into the rear end of A. Gets out, sees A still passed out at the wheel and calls the police who says they will look to prosecute A for drink driving.

In the above case the insurers for B would admit liability and deal with the damage to A. The criminal case is irrelevant to liability as whilst a criminal offence was seemingly committed B still hit a stationary vehicle which was there to be seen and avoided.

Civil and Criminal are two totally separate things and what is a criminal offence doesnt necessarily impact what is the torte of negligence.

That doesn't really address what you initially said.

If the civil matter takes longer than six months and we are not looking at dangerous driving. Should criminal matters wait there can't be any.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

That doesn't really address what you initially said.

If the civil matter takes longer than six months and we are not looking at dangerous driving. Should criminal matters wait there can't be any.

I didnt say that criminal matters should wait, just that the two progress independently and that it is common for civil to conclude prior to criminal.

For the criminal matter the police have up to 6 months to lay the information to the court. That doesnt mean the court case happens in 6 months, it can be a further month or two for the summons to be sent depending on the backlog in the court. Assuming the person pleads not guilty then a new date is set with time for both sides to submit their evidence and for the defendant to outline the grounds for their defense. Whilst courts try to deal with things in as few a hearings as possible its fairly normal for a not guilty plea to require two hearings.

An insurer cannot change their mind based on the fact there is going to be a court case for a criminal offence, you are innocent until proven guilty after all. If they want to see about criminal action they need to wait until the end of the full criminal case not just wait to see if it goes to court or not.

Arfa__

Sounds very similar to a case a friend of mine had, that was recently resolved:
http://www.lampkins.co.uk/news/injured-biker-defeats-dubious-defence-with-gopro-video-camera/

Do you have any video evidence?

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I didnt say that criminal matters should wait, just that the two progress independently and that it is common for civil to conclude prior to criminal.

For the criminal matter the police have up to 6 months to lay the information to the court. That doesnt mean the court case happens in 6 months, it can be a further month or two for the summons to be sent depending on the backlog in the court. Assuming the person pleads not guilty then a new date is set with time for both sides to submit their evidence and for the defendant to outline the grounds for their defense. Whilst courts try to deal with things in as few a hearings as possible its fairly normal for a not guilty plea to require two hearings.

An insurer cannot change their mind based on the fact there is going to be a court case for a criminal offence, you are innocent until proven guilty after all. If they want to see about criminal action they need to wait until the end of the full criminal case not just wait to see if it goes to court or not.

Correct you didn't what you did say is a criminal prosecution would probably happen after a civil matter.

In the case of serious injury it is unlikely civil matters are concluded within 6 months especially if a prosecution is pending. The solicitors usually want a copy of the police report which is not often released until after court.

To clarify again, only offences with a limit of proceedings need to be dealt with in 6 months.

matttye

The thoughts of the victim(s) are only one of the things the police will take into consideration when deciding whether to charge or not.


Did you get details of any independent witnesses that could help support your claim against her insurance?

JustinR1979

glynb wrote: »

I have 2 witnesses who seen everything who stopped to helped me and gave me their details.

I'd say 2.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Correct you didn't what you did say is a criminal prosecution would probably happen after a civil matter.

In the case of serious injury it is unlikely civil matters are concluded within 6 months especially if a prosecution is pending. The solicitors usually want a copy of the police report which is not often released until after court.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Assuming the OP doesnt have injuries which need time to heal etc before quantum can be set

Would have thought the above would clarify we werent talking about serious injury? Dont know many serious injuries that dont have healing time other than death but on the basis the OP is posting here I felt safe in assuming they didnt die.

If liability isnt in dispute what use will a police report be? We do not have punitive damages in the UK and a police report will not be necessary for assessing the valuation of the pain suffering and loss of amenities.

Now if you think the solicitors will spend time requesting a police report despite already having an admission of liability because it means they can add another 20 minutes @ £300 an hour onto their fees (multi-track obviously) then thats a totally different matter.

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Would have thought the above would clarify we werent talking about serious injury? Dont know many serious injuries that dont have healing time other than death but on the basis the OP is posting here I felt safe in assuming they didnt die.

If liability isnt in dispute what use will a police report be? We do not have punitive damages in the UK and a police report will not be necessary for assessing the valuation of the pain suffering and loss of amenities.

Now if you think the solicitors will spend time requesting a police report despite already having an admission of liability because it means they can add another 20 minutes @ £300 an hour onto their fees (multi-track obviously) then thats a totally different matter.

It would be interesting to know where you are "inside insurance".

I've given up trying to work out how insurance companies and their appointed solicitors work.

A Crown Court will allow a police officer to written their own statement. An insurance company will send someone to take one from a police officer. So don't try and say they don't they spend policy money wisely.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

It would be interesting to know where you are "inside insurance".

I've given up trying to work out how insurance companies and their appointed solicitors work.

A Crown Court will allow a police officer to written their own statement. An insurance company will send someone to take one from a police officer. So don't try and say they don't they spend policy money wisely.

Physically? London right now

Work wise? I used to defend injury claims mainly from Motor but the occasional Home claim too. These days I do strategy and change management across the whole spectrum of general insurance. Unfortunately its been a few years since I explicitly did anything around claims though inevitably doing new product development or other broad subjects you cover off the claims elements too. Unfortunately at the moment with the amount of regulatory changes going on the money is in that area rather than claims.

An insurer will perfectly happily accept a written account from a police officer. Ever tried to get one? Ever seen the quality you get?

Many times in my claims days the police officer would either refuse to do one or would claim his bosses wont allow him to. Even if they did say they'd write one you could be waiting months for it because its not their priority. Even if you did get one then half the time they missed the key elements that we were interested in/ be "wrong" - eg in the OPs case they'd "forget" to mention that the TP went through a red light (or even possibly say its the OP that went through the red light).

Whilst clearly you wouldnt ever want to lead the witness, it is sometimes easier to get a claims assessor to interview the policeman so that (a) you get it quicker and (b) if anything is inconsistent it can be questioned then and there rather than having to write back and wait for weeks/ months for another reply.

Of cause a fair few police wont agree to the interviews and so that can be a dead end too.

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Physically? London right now

Work wise? I used to defend injury claims mainly from Motor but the occasional Home claim too. These days I do strategy and change management across the whole spectrum of general insurance. Unfortunately its been a few years since I explicitly did anything around claims though inevitably doing new product development or other broad subjects you cover off the claims elements too. Unfortunately at the moment with the amount of regulatory changes going on the money is in that area rather than claims.

An insurer will perfectly happily accept a written account from a police officer. Ever tried to get one? Ever seen the quality you get?

Many times in my claims days the police officer would either refuse to do one or would claim his bosses wont allow him to. Even if they did say they'd write one you could be waiting months for it because its not their priority. Even if you did get one then half the time they missed the key elements that we were interested in/ be "wrong" - eg in the OPs case they'd "forget" to mention that the TP went through a red light (or even possibly say its the OP that went through the red light).

Whilst clearly you wouldnt ever want to lead the witness, it is sometimes easier to get a claims assessor to interview the policeman so that (a) you get it quicker and (b) if anything is inconsistent it can be questioned then and there rather than having to write back and wait for weeks/ months for another reply.

Of cause a fair few police wont agree to the interviews and so that can be a dead end too.

You answer like David Cameron.

You talk about quality and content yet employ retired police officers to take them.

Got to love those double standards.