Claim against OH by ambulance chasers - fight or not?

littlerock

It seems it is only personal injury being claimed not vehicle damage so probably being done independent of company if he is an employee. As I said it smells of someone putting driver up to it.

OH told insurers he had photos and possible cctv coverage available but it seems it is only personal injury being claimed. Insurer said that soft tissue injuries (what is being claimed) after notoriously hard to disprove, particularly when driver claims they developed after the incident. He said it is easier and cheaper from them to come to an agreement to pay out.

Of course it is when the innocent party picks up the blame and the bill. Grr.

I suspect insurers, having got OH's side of story and emphatic denial of other driver's account as fabricated, insurer will use this to negotiate smaller than claimed settlement with other driver and make it all go away. We will be left to pick up bill in form of higher premium next time round.

Motor insurance seems really amoral these days.

(There is a case on record where a whiplash claim was made for a car bump, against a chartered physio who knew the bump could not have caused it. Insurers were all for paying out but he insisted on it going to court and gave evidence as a specialist in whiplash type injuries and won the case.)

littlerock

What I remain a bit puzzled about is that I thought the general principle if you hit someone from behind was that it was your fault. Now the car in this case was coming from behind and agreed it banged ohs wing mirror with its, but only because it could not stop in time. So why is OH being asked to agree it was his fault and allow the claim to be paid out?

OnanTheBarbarian

What happened at the scene and what is being alleged now will possibly be two different things.

For example, unless there is CCTV footage or independent witnesses, can your OH prove his car did not move to the right/ start to pull out as the other car was passing?

peter_the_piper

littlerock wrote: »

So why is OH being asked to agree it was his fault and allow the claim to be paid out?

Simple, claim can be paid out and op can be charged for the privilege over the next few years, albeit they are the innocent party.

audigex

RS2000. wrote: »

Claims like this will never end until they stop paying out without medical evidence.

They won't end until the insurance companies stop selling lists of their clients who've been in accidents to the vulture lawyers

It's the most stupid business decision I've ever known, but it happens...

maninthestreet

audigex wrote: »

They won't end until the insurance companies stop selling lists of their clients who've been in accidents to the vulture lawyers

It's the most stupid business decision I've ever known, but it happens...

I thought that had been outlawed now???

audigex

I don't believe so, but I may have missed it

arcon5

Was op the innocent party? Both cars went for same lane, other car going quicker than op. Both collided. Wasn't hit from behind as suggested.

littlerock

First driver was stationary in traffic queue. Saw gap open up in lane to his right, indicated and moved out to pull out into it. At same time second driver came round corner (behind first driver and on his left so unsighted) and saw gap was opening up and that first driver was moving into it.

So second driver accelerated to get past first driver and force him back into his own line so he could occupy the gap. First driver stopped as he could see possible accident and second driver accelerated past him swerving slightly but not moving out enough and in doing so caught his wing mirror on first driver's and damaged both. No car impact and no damage to cars at all apart from wing mirrors. (First driver's photos show this clearly.)

First driver is confident cctv cameras would show his version to be correct one and that second driver was also driving much too fast for slow moving traffic in built up area.

Now 6 weeks later second car driver has sent what first car driver believes to be fabricated account to first drivers insurers, blaming first driver and claiming soft tissue injury and claiming compensation expenses. First driver's insurers say they believe him but with no witnesses it would be expensive and time consuming to defend the case and it is easier and cheaper for them to settle.

OnanTheBarbarian

At best it would end up split liability and your insurers still get a bumming, so their decision to deal is based on economics and lack of evidence to prove no degree of fault on your other half.

Buy a dash camera is the lesson to be learned from this adventure.