Car Accident - car on wrong side of road - liability?

Marktheshark

Trusting your insurance to "sort it out" will inevitably result in a 50/50 claim as you are affording them the possibility of settling the dispute in their favour.
This is exactly what they will do, as it saves them money and they get their costs back as your premiums rise.
I would start researching how to make a third party claim for the full loss and uninsured losses.

InsideInsurance

Marktheshark wrote: »

This is exactly what they will do, as it saves them money and they get their costs back as your premiums rise.

Please help me with the maths there.

Lets say moderate damage to both vehicle and keep it simple for me with round numbers, lets say £3,000 to each vehicle:

TP 100% liable - OP's insurer pays out £3,000 and gets £3,000 back from the TPI leaving a net £0 outlay

TP 50% liable - OP's insurer pays out £3,000 for own vehicle damage, has to pay £1,500 to the TP's damage but can get £1,500 back from their outlay. Net outlay £3,000



How do you work out that paying a net £3,000 is cheaper than paying £0?

How much do you think insurance will go up by for 1 fault claim?

How likely do you think the OP will stay with their insurer if they think they did a bad job of handling the claim?

Marktheshark

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Please help me with the maths there.

Lets say moderate damage to both vehicle and keep it simple for me with round numbers, lets say £3,000 to each vehicle:

TP 100% liable - OP's insurer pays out £3,000 and gets £3,000 back from the TPI leaving a net £0 outlay

TP 50% liable - OP's insurer pays out £3,000 for own vehicle damage, has to pay £1,500 to the TP's damage but can get £1,500 back from their outlay. Net outlay £3,000



How do you work out that paying a net £3,000 is cheaper than paying £0?

How much do you think insurance will go up by for 1 fault claim?

How likely do you think the OP will stay with their insurer if they think they did a bad job of handling the claim?

Yes I can help you, no problem, sit down...
Other side disputes liability and it goes to court.
A barrister has to be employed to represent in court at £1750 per hour or part of for a bargain basement one.
If they lose, that is double
Calculated loss, written up, little office time and staff costs and away at £3000 if we use your figures.
Obviously your experience of the real world is some what limited.
In business loss mitigation makes the decisions.

chanz4

a lot will come down to the highway code for the road. Has anyone got access to abi faq section

InsideInsurance

Marktheshark wrote: »

Yes I can help you, no problem, sit down

See that isnt what you said, you said:

Trusting your insurance to "sort it out" will inevitably result in a 50/50 claim as you are affording them the possibility of settling the dispute in their favour.
This is exactly what they will do, as it saves them money and they get their costs back as your premiums rise.

Settling it in the favour is not going 50/50 however there may be an economics decision that means they agree a non-idea decision as its not worth going to court for but that isnt "in their favour" just the lesser of two evils.

And you still havent explained how they get £3,000 back in premium rises from the OP if the OP decides he doesnt like an insurer that doesnt fight his corner and goes elsewhere as most do (hell even if he stays the numbers dont stack)

shazzzzza

The Highway Code cant be used in law, its guidelines only, I got this info from a district crown prosecutor.

chanz4

a lot of amc's use it

Captaincodpiece

shazzzzza wrote: »

The Highway Code cant be used in law, its guidelines only, I got this info from a district crown prosecutor.

It can be used and often is. Whilst the book it's self is guidelines only anything that says must has a link to the legislation that covers it.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

It can be used and often is. Whilst the book it's self is guidelines only anything that says must has a link to the legislation that covers it.

Agree it is used in cases but everything it in it doesnt have to be linked to legislation though a fair proportion of it is.

If you think otherwise, please advise which law section 186 roundabout lane useage and signaling is derived from.

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Agree it is used in cases but everything it in it doesnt have to be linked to legislation though a fair proportion of it is.

If you think otherwise, please advise which law section 186 roundabout lane useage and signaling is derived from.

Did I say it has to be linked?

I said where is say must, that's law and I can't see any must in rule 186.