Without Prejudice car accident

WizPip

I was involved in a car accident on the 28th of March. There was dashcam footage from my vehicle which shows that I am not at fault. The third party insurer accepted liability after seeing the footage but then changed to "without prejudice" because the third party themselves are still in denial and claim it was my fault.

I'll speak to my insurer on Monday about it, but what does without prejudice mean for you?

Will I keep my no claims bonus?
Can I still say the accident wasn't my fault on insurance renewals?
Will it affect me in any way?

:think:

Thanks all!

Crazy_Jamie

I expect it is nothing more than semantics. Generally during litigation parties negotiate on a 'without prejudice' basis to allow them to progress towards settling the case without prejudicing themselves if the matter actually goes all the way to trial. In this instance you would expect the other side to maintain their admission of liability, but in practical terms if they are dealing with your case on a 'without prejudice' basis it simply means that they are in discussions to pay your damages (car repairs and so on) but are doing it without explicitly saying that they are at fault. Should they ultimately settle the claim in your favour then the end result will be the same, namely that this will not be a fault accident for you, entitling you to keep your no claims bonus. Technically it shouldn't affect you in any way, though whether or not some individual insurance companies will 'penalise' you in terms of premium for having an accident at all is another matter altogether. I understand that some do irrespective, but someone with more specific knowledge about that can probably give a more definitive answer.

WizPip

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Technically it shouldn't affect you in any way, though whether or not some individual insurance companies will 'penalise' you in terms of premium for having an accident at all is another matter altogether.

Someone else hit me several years ago and that one went all the way to court. Ultimately I was held at fault (which given all the evidence I provided made me suddenly lose a lot of respect for the legal system), but when I got my renewal quote it was actually a similar figure as for the previous year. I'm not entirely sure that there are any rules when it comes to insurance companies!

teddysmum

They have a range of attitudes to no-faults, according to a newspaper report,last year.


Two named, well known companies always increase the premium, saying that you are more likely to make another claim (according to their stats), while others say it doesn't affect theirs. Between these is a range offering just one no-fault to multiples.

Aretnap

Without prejudice means, essentially, that they will pay for your repairs without formally admitting liability. It means that, for example, if you were to come back to them in future and say that you had a really sore neck and wanted some compensation for whiplash on top of the repair bill, they reserve the right to say "well, if that's how it's going to be, maybe it wasn't our driver's fault after all".

In practice, assuming you don't plan to come back with a PI claim the effect is the same as if they made a full admission of liability - they pay for your repairs, you keep your NCB and it will be recorded as a no fault claim. The no fault claim may or may not have an impact in your premium depending in the insurer and your own exact circumstances - but almost certainly a smaller impact than a fault claim.

keith1950

Will I keep my no claims bonus?
Can I still say the accident wasn't my fault on insurance renewals?

When renewing your insurance you can only state what your insurer gives you written proof of.
Likewise your renewal will state whether your insurer considers the accident at fault or no fault.

Will it affect me in any way?

Even if you keep your NCB your premium will probably rise because statistically you are now considered to be a higher risk.

OnanTheBarbarian

Essentially the insurers of the other party don't want to fight the claim on liability grounds as they don't think they will win, but at the same time they do not have permission from their policyholder to formally admit liability, so they chose to deal without prejudice to liability.

This means you get paid out and the position of their policyholder has not been prejudiced and therefore the third party can, if they choose to, still make a claim against you because liability has never formally been admitted.