Car insurance 50:50 split when not at fault

antimanu

My elderly father had a lady reverse into his car last year and there has been a long protracted exchange with his motor insurance company - Churchill. I have since listed to his initial call, made within an hour of the incident and my father states that the third party accepted responsibility at the scene. He also states where he was parked and other cars in the vicinity. In the same call, as he stated there were no witnesses, Churchill asked if he would settle on a 50:50 basis. This is without even asking the third party or her insurance company! As a result, my father has been forced to pay a £300 excess and lost his no claims bonus for something he didn't do.

Indeed, a month later, a witness that does not know either party manages to come forward on behalf of the lady and manages to state my father is fault. Churchill are seemingly unprepared to ask the obvious questions of how and when he managed to be contacted – particularly as his statement nearly two months later offers a different version of where parked and other vehicles; which conveniently prevents him from being illegally parked.


Has anyone else been a victim of this (i.e. 50:50 split or incurred costs when not at fault) and particularly where Churchill is concerned?

InsideInsurance

Even if there is no dispute on liability it is normal practice for you to pay your excess and lose your NCD until your insurer recovers their outlay. Your excess can be claimed from the other party/ their insurers and your insurers will assist you doing it if you have bought Legal Expenses cover.

I dont see any issues with a discussion on liability or preparing people's expectations in cases which frequently do end up on split liability. Just because you warn someone it may go to split doesnt mean you dont attempt to win liability.

OnanTheBarbarian

Who left the scene of the collision first after details were exchanged? Your father or the other party?

antimanu

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Even if there is no dispute on liability it is normal practice for you to pay your excess and lose your NCD until your insurer recovers their outlay. Your excess can be claimed from the other party/ their insurers and your insurers will assist you doing it if you have bought Legal Expenses cover.

I dont see any issues with a discussion on liability or preparing people's expectations in cases which frequently do end up on split liability. Just because you warn someone it may go to split doesnt mean you dont attempt to win liability.

Thanks. Unfortunately, Churchill appear to be happy with the settlement and are making no pro-active steps. In my opinion, they have made no attempt to challenge and are using the witness statement as a barrier. However, they still have not asked the key questions as to how and when contact was made with the witness given they apparently do not know each other. The lady also told my father she worked in insurance at the scene and this is another reason I have doubts over the scenario.

antimanu

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Who left the scene of the collision first after details were exchanged? Your father or the other party?

Thanks. My father left the scene first I believe as he was giving someone a lift to the train station. But the witness had already gone if that's your point.

nomoneytoday

From the car insurers side, both your father and the other car driver are claiming it's the other one at fault. Both have reasonable stories.

Who do you believe?

Marktheshark

He should have looked if the area was covered by cctv.

antimanu

Marktheshark wrote: »

He should have looked if the area was covered by cctv.

We've looked at this and there isn't.

antimanu

nomoneytoday wrote: »

From the car insurers side, both your father and the other car driver are claiming it's the other one at fault. Both have reasonable stories.

Who do you believe?

Well given the content of the call within an hour of the incident and then a statement from a witness several weeks later who we still have no idea how was contacted manages to make a vehicle disappear and then changes the positioning of three cars, I would personally think that Churchill could do more.


But it's an interesting point you raise. As under such circumstances, it's effectively saying it is possible for anyone that has a similar accident to say whatever they want, dispute thereafter and then create a witness - real or not - with no comeback or questioning.

InsideInsurance

Insurers dont have the ability to cross examine the other sides witness outside of court.

They also work on simple economics, going to court costs money and especially in small track cases where legal costs cannot be added even if you win. Now there is a chance the witness wont turn up or is bogus and the judge sees through it but there is also probably a bigger chance that the judge believes the witnesses sworn testimony, which would be contempt of court if false, and so will award on its basis. If you deal with 100 cases a day like this the odds just are that you will lose money contesting them for the 5-10 you dont lose.

antimanu

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Insurers dont have the ability to cross examine the other sides witness outside of court.

They also work on simple economics, going to court costs money and especially in small track cases where legal costs cannot be added even if you win. Now there is a chance the witness wont turn up or is bogus and the judge sees through it but there is also probably a bigger chance that the judge believes the witnesses sworn testimony, which would be contempt of court if false, and so will award on its basis. If you deal with 100 cases a day like this the odds just are that you will lose money contesting them for the 5-10 you dont lose.

Clearly you know your stuff. Can I just ask if you know if the Ombudsman has any power to ask questions of the other insurer i.e. could they ask the "other side" for some information of how the witness was contacted, etc.