Son had accident - not his fault but other party saying it was....

CM66

Go back to your insurers, tell them you dont accept 50/50 liability and show proof why.

I've just had to do this after a woman reversed into my car at a petrol station and then tried to say i drove into her. My insurers tried to get me to accept 50/50 which i refused. After a little more coaxing the other insurers accepted full liability.

Sometimes i think they just push for 50/50 so they dont have to do any work!

If its not your fault then i would fight it. Good Luck.

Silver-Surfer_2

rich13348 wrote: »

This is the bit to which the OP refers.



https://goo.gl/maps/gHJ7tBfRkvj

Thanks for that, it's totally different to how I pictured it.

What time was the collision? Is the bus lane still 7am-7pm?

She has clearly failed to follow the road layout so I can now see why you're so !!!!ed off.

Quentin

caliew wrote: »

Hi I have worked in the insurance industry for sometime ........If 50/50 then usually 50 percent or more of the excess monies could be kept back and not returned due to payouts, fees and investigations ..... With regards to a motor legal plan running alongside the policy solicitors only tend to take on the legal side if they have a successful chance of winning that's say 51 percent chance of success in favour of your son, if it's not looking too good then they don't tend to represent .....

You tell us you are an ex employee of the "insurance industry" then go on to give all this bad advice about motor claims??


If this ends up 50/50 then both parties will definitely get 50% of their excesses reimbursed.


Your excess isn't covered by your own policy. So when you claim, you pay your excess. Then if there is a liable third party you can claim back your uninsured losses (or proportion if it is a split liability) off the liable third party insurer. There are no deductions made to pay for "payouts, fees & investigations" - you have made that up!


Regarding your advice on "motor legal plan", if you are referring to the "legal cover" offered with car insurance, then this is usually uninsured loss recovery.


If you have any uninsured losses such as excess/loss of earnings/hire car etc then this legal cover will pursue the other side for their reimbursement.


If the claim has been settled on any split liability (50/50, 60/40 etc) then you can always use your legal cover if you have it to recover your share of the uninsured losses - they don't need a 51% chance of success!

bigjl

Lots of good advice given already.

I feel your financial pain.

DashCams are almost to be considered a necessity these days.

A mate has a really good one that he had hard wired into his car, has a forward and rear facing camera and GPS.

Will find out the details and price and post it up, perhaps it won't help this time but going forward will be of benefit.

Quentin

CM66 wrote: »

Go back to your insurers, tell them you dont accept 50/50 liability and show proof why.....

The problem here is that there seems to be no proof of who caused this. (The OP hasn't mentioned any)


Without any witnesses/film etc then both drivers cannot be telling the truth - hence the 50/50 that the insurers seem to think is appropriate.

Silver-Surfer_2

Quentin wrote: »

The problem here is that there seems to be no proof of who caused this. (The OP hasn't mentioned any)


Without any witnesses/film etc then both drivers cannot be telling the truth - hence the 50/50 that the insurers seem to think is appropriate.

He has photos, if one shows the cars in their impact position it may help. However if it's a cas of the impact happened and both pulled over further down the road then it's one drivers word against the others and 50/50'seems the cheapest option for all.

pandora205

I think this is definitely worth fighting with photos and detailed description and diagrams (maybe frame by frame to show the sequence of events), as well as photos of the cars after impact.

bigjl

rich13348 wrote: »

This is the bit to which the OP refers.



https://goo.gl/maps/gHJ7tBfRkvj

I would not accept 50:50 on an accident on a road laid out like that.

The 3rd party is likely guilty of driving without due care and attention.

It is a stupid idea to have confusing road layouts such as that imho.

But then your son and everybody else on the road was able to figure out what to do.

I suspect the 3rd party has made a vague statement saying she drove straight on and your son turned left into her.

Which though factually correct is completely out of context.

Silver-Surfer_2

bigjl wrote: »

I would not accept 50:50 on an accident on a road laid out like that.

The 3rd party is likely guilty of driving without due care and attention.

It is a stupid idea to have confusing road layouts such as that imho.

But then your son and everybody else on the road was able to figure out what to do.

I suspect the 3rd party has made a vague statement saying she drove straight on and your son turned left into her.

Which though factually correct is completely out of context.

I can't disagree with that and I suspect that's what's happened. It's also the reason I asked about the time of the crash as others may have been using the bus lane.

It would also be interesting to know how his claim was made, I don't think the OP gave a true reflection of what happened. His initial posts made it read like the son had some element of blame. However to be fair he did say that he insurance have been given pictures. Makes you wonder if they have actually looked at them.

chunkytfg

So basically your son stayed in his lane and the other person changed lanes to the right crashing into the LH side of your sons vehicle?

As Bigjl has pointed out the likelihood is a vague report from the TP making it sound like they are in the right when they are not. don't accept 50:50 regardless. The bus lane being open to other traffic is irrelevant as the other vehicle still changed lanes without checking to make sure it was clear to do so.