Is it always the reverser at fault?

isayoldchap

Back in August 2004 I was reversing into a car parking bay, at 3mph approx,
when a vehicle I was just passing pulled out.(This road is for three cars approx)I am parking nearside he is on my offside.His damage on the companies
Audi a4 approx £700.No van damage.Out of the blue he is now presenting another witness so our insurance company has advised.oh by the way the driver of the other vehicle is a banker(no really).(I don't want knock for knock
Too make things worse I am now renewing my car insurance( nothing to do with the company and have to disclose all accidents whether fault or non fault or of course pending(I know this)and some but not all will assume you are guilty for any pending accidents.Some have increased the quote by at least £170.I know I may have a case for a refund but I wouldn't take out the policy as other's are cheaper and I have so far found Auto direct(in my case)
to not load my policy regardless if there are these claims.So far their quote is
£281 after an adjusted email and a phone call by me to haggle.Going through the usual confused etc.they have still come out the cheapest.(also includes
everything like legal.courtsey.european etc.£200 excess.

Torby

I think it becomes open to debate...much easier to clarify if the vehicle you hit is stationery...if its moving the argument becomes who hit who....I mean you could be reversing and someone drives into you for example.....need someone from law enforcement here...or an insurance expert...I'm sure one will be along shortly...

andy88_2

You don't quite describe how your present insurers are handling the case.

If they provisionally charge a higher premium, then later you are found to be not at fault, the premium increase will be refunded. If you are found to be at fault, this will affect potential premiums with all companies.

I wouldn't mess around at the moment looking for different cover. Your insurers are unlikely to work so hard to rebut the claim if you have left; if the case is lost, you will be obliged to disclose this to your new insurers. A potential renewal saving of a few quid now risks damaging your future premiums much more.

It may be frustrating having to be patient about this, but I think you should stay there whether you are confident or not in your case.

isayoldchap

andy88 wrote:

You don't quite describe how your present insurers are handling the case.

If they provisionally charge a higher premium, then later you are found to be not at fault, the premium increase will be refunded. If you are found to be at fault, this will affect potential premiums with all companies.

I wouldn't mess around at the moment looking for different cover. Your insurers are unlikely to work so hard to rebut the claim if you have left; if the case is lost, you will be obliged to disclose this to your new insurers. A potential renewal saving of a few quid now risks damaging your future premiums much more.

It may be frustrating having to be patient about this, but I think you should stay there whether you are confident or not in your case.

Hi Andy
The van insurance is the companies dealings.I am wanting to renew my private car insurance.As for the company policy-the insurance company are
deciding this could be a knock for knock.They are waiting to interview the other witness and we'll see if we have to go to court.

telly-addict

There is no longer such a thing as knock for knock (i.e. each insurers pays for the damage to their own insured vehicle) and hasn't been for a number of years.

Your insurers may have suggested that this is a 50/50 claim - i.e. each driver is 50% to blame for the accident and so the insurer pays 50% of the damage to the other vehicle. This is very common where liability for the accident is not clear-cut and where there are different accounts of the accident circumstances by the parties involved. It's always difficult (and often uneconomic for the insurer) to prove who was to blame

I note that a witness is now being cited by the other driver. Is the witness independent, i.e. not a passsenger and unknown to the other driver? Their evidence tends to hold little weight if they are not independent.

In my experience (15 years plus of dealing with insurance claims), your best chance of saving your no claims discount is to pursue the other insurer for any uninsured losses - policy excess, hire charges, inconvenience, etc. If you are able to recover fully from the other insurer, then your NCD should be reinstated. You are likely to pursue such a claim more vigorously than your insurer.

I don't agree that your insurer will deal any differently if you are still insured with them or insured elsewhere. At the end of the day they want to recover their outlay regardless of where you are insured.

Good luck with your claim.

telly-addict

Oops, forgot to give you my thoughts on who was at fault. Difficult to give you a definitive answer (if there is such a thing!) without the full facts.

The reversing driver is not always at fault, although it's probably true to say that this is the case more often than not. When carrying out a reversing manoevre, the onus is on you to be fully aware of vehicles (and pedestrians)around you.

In your case, if both vehicles were moving at the moment of impact, I suspect that 50/50 is the most likely outcome. If one of the vehicles was stationary, responsibility is more likely to lie with the moving vehicle. Were you both indicating?

Hope that this helps.