Claim against OH by ambulance chasers - fight or not?

littlerock

About a month ago, OH was in heavy traffic and indicated and pulled out slowly into a gap which appeared in the right hand lane. At this point a car came round the corner and tried to accelerate into the vacant lane gap and saw OH too late anddid not quite make it through the gap and ripped off the wing mirrors on both cars.They stopped and got out and OH took photos and checked only damage was wing mirrors. Other driver was working for a mini cab firm. Neither party was injured. OH says it was all quite amicable and they swapped names and addresses and agreed no damage done.

OH replaced his wing mirror and assumed other guy did the same. Assumed as minicab firm they would not want to get involved in making dubious claim for minor damage. How wrong can you be? Now we have had a phone call from our insurers saying other guy is claiming whiplash injury which only emerged afterwards. This is first we have heard of it. OH emphatically denies liability saying other driver was was not going fast enough and was not in the least shaken or anything else by the impact. However, and our insurers concur, he has now got into the hands of ambulance chasing lawyers.

I am inclined to fight it as my policy includes legal expenses but our insurers do want to settle. They say soft tissue injury can emerge after an incident which fact the ambulance chasers exploit and it is almost impossible to prove who is in the right in this sort of case, and it is cheaper for them to settle.

What do you think?

motorguy

littlerock wrote: »

About a month ago, OH was in heavy traffic and indicated and pulled out slowly into a gap which appeared in the right hand lane. At this point a car came round the corner and tried to accelerate into the e vacant lane gap and saw OH did not quite make it through the gap and ripped off the wing mirrors on both cars.They stopped and got out and OH took photos and checked only damage was wing mirrors. Other driver was working for a mini cab firm. Neither party was injured. OH says it was all quite amicable and they swapped names and addresses and agreed no damage done.

OH replaced his wing mirror and assumed other guy did the same. Assumed as minicab firm they would not want to get involved in making dubious claim for minor damage. How wrong can you be? Now we have had a phone call from our insurers saying other guy is claiming whiplash injury which only emerged afterwards. This is first we have heard of it. OH denies liability saying other driver was was not going fast enough and was not in the least shaken or anything else by the impact. However, and our insurers concur, he has now got into the hands of ambulance chasing lawyers.

I am inclined to fight it as my policy includes legal expenses but insurers do not want to they want to settle. They say soft tissue injury can emerge after an incident which the ambulance chasers exploit and it is almost impossible to prove who is in the right in this sort of case, as and it is cheaper for them to settle.

What do you think?

I think you're not qualified to decide whether or not someone has suffered a personal injury as a result of the accident.

Its "likely" they didnt, but they could have.

I was in an accident 7 years ago, felt fine at the time however over the period of a couple of days i developed whiplash. OK i got a few thousand out of it, but i still get pain in my back today and i'd cheerfully swap that £3000 for no pain.

They could well just be in it for the claim, but its going to be cheaper for the insurance company just to pay out rather than fight it and probably lose anyway.

OnanTheBarbarian

Legal expenses insurance doesn't cover you for costs of defending a claim being made against you, that it what your actual motor insurance cover is for.

Your insurers will do what they feel is right for them economically. If it was just wing mirror to wing mirror contact then I would say it would be worthwhile fighting as there would be no occupant movement from the collision, but if there was other panel damage, it becomes more difficult to argue.

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

but its going to be cheaper for the insurance company just to pay out rather than fight it and probably lose anyway.

I think insurers have finally realised that this approach has been counter-productive, and are spending more than a believed-spurious claim is worth to defend it now. Let's hope so.

OP - hand the letter straight to your insurer, and explain the circumstances in full. There's plenty to lose and nothing to gain from getting them involved now.

littlerock

It's hard to see how you get whiplash from wing mirrors colliding!

To clarify - this phone call from our insurers is the first we knew of a claim being made. So far we have not had any letter from other party's insurers or any claim notified to us. The only damage was to the wing mirrors - OH has photos showing this he took at the time and he told our insurers this.

However the claim has been made direct to our insurers (presumably via details obtained via OH's registration number) by passing us completely.

It is our insurers who are saying it is easier and cheaper for them to settle even though OH emphatically denies other driver's claim about what happened.

Hoof_Hearted

The insurers can't have it both ways. They moan about spurious claims but they won't fight back when a claim is so obviously fraudulent. Whiplash from a broken wing mirror? -- the bloke should be prosecuted for fraud.

bob_a_builder

And it will be you who have to state the FULL value of the claim made when you change/renew insurance

And one can only assume that will have an adverse effect on your future premium - everything else does so no reason to think this wont

My son had similar with east European gent, who claimed whiplash several months after original incident - although slightly more damage in our case, but the total value of cars involved was only 5K - yet final claim value was £12.5 K ( and neither car was written off so a max possible mechanical claim of 50% of 5K = 2.5k - so other 10k must have gone in whiplash claim - or exorbitant hire charges !

I think insurers have finally realised that this approach has been counter-productive

- not so sure about that !

littlerock

I have protected NCD and can make two claims before it impacts so currently am still covered.

It is the weasel lawyers I would be going after. OH says other driver (for minicab firm) looked likely to be recent arrival in UK as spoke very fractured english with strong accent. OH says he did not seem at all put out by the incident and not injured and not particularly concerned as it was only wing mirror.

This was all over a month ago and claim has only just turned up at our insurers. We assume, cynically, he has been put up to it to make a few pounds.

InsideInsurance

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

The insurers can't have it both ways. They moan about spurious claims but they won't fight back when a claim is so obviously fraudulent.

The insurer however cannot recover their costs of defending a claim.

If the TP is claiming £1,001 for their injury and it will cost the insurer £1,500 in expert fees, staff, loci reports, attempts to get statements, CCTV etc then even if they win they are down £499 -v- just paying it. There'd still be a chance that they werent able to disprove it in which case their costs are now £2,501.

With low value PI claims its almost a case of your damned if you do and damned if you dont. It could therefore be cheapest to simply use your staff time to negotiate the claim down to £750 for a quick settlement -v- fighting it on principle.

Given all our premiums are based on the insurers actual expenses not their "win rate" there is a reasonable arguement for economic based decisions on which cases to argue.

littlerock wrote: »

I have protected NCD and can make two claims before it impacts so currently am still covered.

NCDP only protects your discount, not your premium. So assuming you had a 65% discount you'd still get a 65% discount but the premium will be increased for you having had a fault accident.

littlerock

Seems a bit unfair when we strenuously contest other driver's version of events and it seems quite likely, given known facts, it is a put up job and not our fault at all. So although we deny other driver's version and are prepared to contest the claim, our insurance company decides to plead guilty on our behalf and then charges us an increased premium for being guilty when it was all a fabricated accident claim (by the other party.)

Lesson to take from all this is next time to claim some sort of strain injury and contact an ambulance chasing lawyer with a counter claim?

In fact there are cctv cameras all around the site which is near a busy roundabout and if anyone bothered to look at the footage, would probably show what happened. But I don't know how long the footage is kept, maybe another reason for the claim turning up now (ie over a month later) is the lawyers adjudge the footage will have been overwritten by now.....

RS2000.

littlerock wrote: »

Seems a bit unfair when we strenuously contest other driver's version of events and it seems quite likely, given known facts, it is a put up job and not our fault at all. So although we deny other driver's version and are prepared to contest the claim, our insurance company decides to plead guilty on our behalf and then charges us an increased premium for being guilty when it was all a fabricated accident claim (by the other party.)

Lesson to take from all this is next time to claim some sort of strain injury and contact an ambulance chasing lawyer with a counter claim?

In fact there are cctv cameras all around the site which is near a busy roundabout and if anyone bothered to look at the footage, would probably show what happened. But I don't know how long the footage is kept, maybe another reason for the claim turning up now (ie over a month later) is the lawyers adjudge the footage will have been overwritten by now.....

If your OH isn't liable they won't pay, but changing lanes suggests they might be. Do you have any witnesses?

How do the insurance company feel about agreeing there was no damage when in fact there was? They were informed at the time weren't they?