Can insurance company claim it was a "low impact crash after paying out for 3k damage

pothole007

........................................

bod1467

Did you accept the cheque in full and final settlement of the claim? Did you advise them that there may be a personal injury claim to add?

Spicy_McHaggis

So the police failed to attend an injury accident with a drink driver?

Brilliant!

If that is true, I can see how the rest has panned out. They should have breath tested him and acted accordingly.

InsideInsurance

pothole007 wrote: »

Is this normal pratice for insurance companys after they have paid out for the damage?

LVI is an increasingly common defense but by no means common.

What damages metal/ plastic/ paint is not automatically the same as what damages flesh/ bone. A very low velocity parking error is likely to cause a hell of a lot of bodywork and paint damage if the person continues at the low velocity rather than stopping where as is highly unlikely to cause injury.

On the flip side I'm aware of one case where the total damage to the car was a sub £1,000 dent to the drivers door and a smashed window but resulted in the death of the driver so a very substantial PI claim.

Your solicitors will be used to going against the LVI defense and will advise you as appropriate

pothole007

..........................................

arcon5

Go see a doctor and get his professional opinions written up.

A low impact crash doesn't have to mean people wasn't injured. They are though playing hard to get.

Your solicitor should have advised you to seek medical attention and get proof of your injuries.

Damage to his car isn't really the be and end all of it.

InsideInsurance

Leaving the scene of the accident is irrelevant to if you were actually injured or just trying to milk the system by making up injuries. These cases become an argument of experts and nerve rather than anything else.

Your solicitor will advise what to do, they will arrange a medical if it hasnt been done so already and undoubtedly advise them that LVI is being used as a defense so that the report is coloured to acknowledge it wasnt a major crash but was certainly sufficient to cause the sorts of injuries sustained.

arcon5

I doubt a photo of his car would outweigh evidence provided by medical experts post-accident. A rear end incident for example can often result in severe damage to the offending vehicle with comparably insignificant damage to the victims vehicle

nomoneytoday

Were you actually injured from the crash?
What costs did you incur from these?

Aretnap

pothole007 wrote: »

So if this went to court the judge will say nothing to the other driver for leaving the scene of an accident that was reported to the police???

No, the other driver probably might not even be there. The question the court would have to decide would be whether or not you were injured in the accident and if so how badly. Whether the driver was drunk or whether he left the scene aren't relevant - you don't get extra compensation because of things like that.

You have a solicitor involved - to be honest you're better off asking him for advice than you are asking on an internet forum.

arcon5

The courts would decide whether you have suffered injuries and what damages are appropriate based on the evidence submitted by both parties. Mainly the medical reports though since there is no dispute as to the fact the other driver was liable.
The fact though he was drunk is unproven.
The fact he left the scene may not be relevant to the judge for the above reasons - him leaving the scene hasn't changed the level of injuries in any way. Him leaving the scene is relevant for any police prosecution, but not necessarily civil proceedings.