car accident 3rd party denying liability

force_ten

Strider590 wrote: »

Why all the anger? As i've just said, she might not have changed her story at all. It's most likely the insurance companies initial response.
With my case it took LV 3 months just to get the actual accident report from the 3rd party.

That is kind of what i said in my post, regardless of what was said at the scene of the accident, when it is passed to the insurance company they will immediately try to mitigate their loss and keep their costs to a minimum

on a single track road with no white lines is a classic case where and insurer will try for a 50/50 split where both insurers pay 50% of the claim but nobody accepts liability

As for the lie detector test that is a great idea I would phone up your insurance company and run that one by them

missile

19lottie82 wrote: »

I am "getting real"!

The exact same thing happened to my colleague (woman from neighbouring office building bumped into her in a shared work car park admitted liability but that all changed when insurance companies got involved), so my friend went over to her work to ask her what was going on.

The next day her insurance company phoned her, as the woman had phoned her insurance company and told them what had happened and they told my colleague NOT to approach the other party under any circumstances as it could be construed as harassment. They should leave everything to the insurance companies and not get involved.

... and your friend should have told 3rd party insurance company their call could also be construed as harassment! I guess your friend did as she was told like a good little girl? <LOL>

stuartves

Many thanks once again for all the replies and advice on this subject. This last week I have been boiling with anger and frustration. So I decided I would contact the 3rd party directly. I took on board the harrassing issue and the fact that the inurance companies advise against contacting the 3rd party. I cannot legally use a recorded telephone conversation as evidence and me calling her could have been viewed as harrassment no matter how pleasant I was if the 3rd party was as dishonest as the insurers were claiming she was. So I decided to text her. That way we would both have a copy of the transcription and it would be interesting if she replied. I was very pleasant asking after her and her childrens health after the accident and briefly explained what the insurance company was claiming she said. I said I am prepared to go to court on this and the damage to the vehicles would give an idea of what happened. I also played the vicar passenger would be prepared to testify if needed. This evening I received a reply from her hoping that I and my passengers were ok and that she had told her insurance company that it was her fault and she lost control after skidding on ice. She said that she would contact them again tomorrow. She also thanked me for being a kind man and hoped it would get settled fairly. For the person who advised me to contact her thank you. I feel a lot better now and I also have the text message she has sent me. I feel a little guilty for harbouring bad feelings towards her, but this turns out to her insurers (LV) bending the story somewhat and obviously putting words in her mouth and omitting facts. I will be on to Churchill tomorrow and hopefully this will be resolved the way it should be. Thanks again all

19lottie82

missile wrote: »

... and your friend should have told 3rd party insurance company their call could also be construed as harassment! I guess your friend did as she was told like a good little girl? <LOL>

It wasn't the third party's insurance company that had called her, it was her own. LOL!

Strider590

stuartves wrote: »

Many thanks once again for all the replies and advice on this subject. This last week I have been boiling with anger and frustration. So I decided I would contact the 3rd party directly. I took on board the harrassing issue and the fact that the inurance companies advise against contacting the 3rd party. I cannot legally use a recorded telephone conversation as evidence and me calling her could have been viewed as harrassment no matter how pleasant I was if the 3rd party was as dishonest as the insurers were claiming she was. So I decided to text her. That way we would both have a copy of the transcription and it would be interesting if she replied. I was very pleasant asking after her and her childrens health after the accident and briefly explained what the insurance company was claiming she said. I said I am prepared to go to court on this and the damage to the vehicles would give an idea of what happened. I also played the vicar passenger would be prepared to testify if needed. This evening I received a reply from her hoping that I and my passengers were ok and that she had told her insurance company that it was her fault and she lost control after skidding on ice. She said that she would contact them again tomorrow. She also thanked me for being a kind man and hoped it would get settled fairly. For the person who advised me to contact her thank you. I feel a lot better now and I also have the text message she has sent me. I feel a little guilty for harbouring bad feelings towards her, but this turns out to her insurers (LV) bending the story somewhat and obviously putting words in her mouth and omitting facts. I will be on to Churchill tomorrow and hopefully this will be resolved the way it should be. Thanks again all

I'm going to bookmark this post, we're forever seeing angry folks on here in the same situation, with 3rd party insurers stirring things up.

Quentin

stuartves wrote: »

I received a reply from her hoping that I and my passengers were ok and that she had told her insurance company that it was her fault and she lost control after skidding on ice. She said that she would contact them again tomorrow......

It is not for the policyholder to determine liability.


In this case despite what she has told you the lady could be blameless if there was ice on the road which caused the skid.

sh0597

If the RTC was caused by ice then it's highly likely she is not responsible.

Strider590

sh0597 wrote: »

If the RTC was caused by ice then it's highly likely she is not responsible.

So, when it snows and i'm crawling driving down the dual carriageway in the clear lane and I see some plonker come belting down the snow covered lane, usually in a van (they must think the yellow strobe melts the snow) or a 4x4 on summer tyres, lose control and slam into 12 cars, that's not the drivers fault?

Quentin

This case involves ice not snow

sh0597

Like any insurance case it comes down to negligence. Reading the OP's original post it sounds as though there was ice at the bottom of a hill on a narrow country road, that is a common place for it to be icy.


The third party has momentarily lost control and the back has swiped the OP's car.


It may still be the case that the third party was negligent by braking heavily at the last minute or travelling too fast for the condition of the road.


It's quite likely the other party braked normally but their car failed to slow normally due to being on an icy slope, they steered correctly to avoid the OP but the ice caused the back to step out. They had not encountered ice up to this point and were not driving at excessive speed.


The loss of control was brief and minor but due to the OP's car being unfortunately placed at the bottom of the slope, and the low width of the road, a collision occurred, causing minor damage to both vehicles.


I don't think it's clear the other party was negligent.