assigning fault for accident on ice

bluphoto7

Hi there,
I was involved in an accident on a single lane country road yesterday. The road was like a glass bottle - sheet ice. I touched the brakes to slow for an oncoming car (likely still 400m away) and slid the whole distance to impact. I even had time to put my hazards on, but my car sailed along the middle of the road like a bowling ball. Was probably doing about 15mph on impact.

I was going downhill at the time though, so although I couldn't stop - she slid to an almost immediate stop. Managed to get the nose of her car off the road, but the back end was still sticking out.

Thump!!!

Everyone was okay - no injuries - but shaken up.

Although I don't think I could realistically have done anything more to avoid the accident, I do believe I managed to prevent it from being a head on, instead glancing off the side of her car before ending up dug into the grass verge 50m further down the road. For that I'm thankful - though obviously its not seen like that by everyone.

Its probably not normal to report here saying that I think she was less to blame than the insurance company says. She thinks I'm pushing for a 50/50 claim, and she obviously is upset at that. I would have assumed, as my car was the only car moving at the time of impact, that my policy would be the one paying out, and that 50/50 would not apply.

But no, the insurance company says it's 50/50, and I'm not about to say I did anything WRONG, when I didn't. I had bad luck, but she ended up being the victim of my bad luck.

Should I tell my insurers that I was at fault - even though I think it was just a freak accident on an ungritted icy stretch of road? Can an insurer settle 70/30 maybe?

foxtrotoscar_2

Sorry I don't think the other driver is to blame at all. They were stopped on the correct side of the road and you ran into them. 400m is some distance not to be in control of your vehicle whatever the conditions.

bluphoto7

Don't apologise, that's exactly what I think too. It's the insurers who are pushing the 50/50 thing.

She was probably not in full control for maybe 20feet as she slid into the verge. I was not in full control the whole time. - they see it as both people were not in full control at some point.

That's my point too I told the insurers EXACTLY what happened, and THEY are going the 50/50 route.

I'm not about to lie to them but I also don't want to admit "personal" liability. Circumstantial liability is fair enough - if there is such a thing.

Also remember that this was a single lane road with passing places. There are no "sides" of the road. no white line. back of her car was sticking out, and I went straight through. Even if I was hard against the left side of the road, my vehicle would probably have taken up 2/3rds of the road width and still hit her. I DO think my own policy should pay out and hers not, but I just tell them the facts.

I agree that 400m is a crazy distance to slide out of full control, but it was downhill on sheet ice. if I'd not hit her I'd have probably gone straight across the tee junction at the end and into the river!

My question is.. Am I 100% fully to blame as a negligent driver, or was the accident largely circumstantial? Should I just let the insurance company make the decision or should I paint myself in an artificially poor light?

InsideInsurance

At the point of collision was she stationary or was she sliding too?

Assuming she was stationary at the point of collision then you are 100% to blame.

Who is it that you have spoken to at your insurers? Was it just the claims notification line or were you put through to another department? Generally the first notification team only have modest training to cover the most common circumstances but their decision only really drives which department the claim gets passed to. After that a more experienced/ trained person reviews the case and ensures the decision was "correct". Where things can fall down is that typically the first person only has a couple of lines to summarise the accident into -v- what can be a 30 minute explanation from the policyholder and so sometimes the extra detail is lost.

Narrow/ country lane collisions often ended up 50/50 hence probably them giving you this as the initial reaction but if they note you were skidding and the TP was stationary then it should be repositioned as a fault claim.

Marktheshark

Hope she doesn't come here for advice or it will be 100% her way with you at court.
Keep quiet.

bluphoto7

Yes, she was stationary when I hit her. I'm really annoyed with the insurer for leading her to believe that I was the one pushing for 50/50.

I will call them and set it straight.

bluphoto7

Magic - just called them and set them straight. When they asked if I believed I was at fault, my response was that I don't believe the third party was at fault at all. As such my insurers have accepted liability from my policy and hopefully that will be the end of the matter.

InsideInsurance

bluphoto7 wrote: »

Magic - just called them and set them straight. When they asked if I believed I was at fault, my response was that I don't believe the third party was at fault at all. As such my insurers have accepted liability from my policy and hopefully that will be the end of the matter.

Technically there are cases where no party is fault so saying the TP isnt at fault is actually different from saying you are at fault but your insurers appear to be taking it as your fault so all fine now.

System

You are a rare honest and generous man, qualities not generally encouraged by the insurance industry.

bluphoto7

yes. I carefully said that the third party wasn't at fault, and even more carefully DID NOT say, that I was. If they make any assumptions based on that then that's up to them.

Now I can call them at renewal time when they say I had a fault accident and argue the point. (not that I expect to get anywhere with that)

InsideInsurance

bluphoto7 wrote: »

yes. I carefully said that the third party wasn't at fault, and even more carefully DID NOT say, that I was. If they make any assumptions based on that then that's up to them.

Now I can call them at renewal time when they say I had a fault accident and argue the point. (not that I expect to get anywhere with that)

Technically, if neither party "are at fault" then they both have a "fault claim" if they claim for own damage because the insurer cannot recover their outlay from anyone and a fault claim is defined as one where your insurer has a net outlay after all the invoices and counterclaims are settled