Insurance settle 50/50 but im not at fault!

Crazy_Jamie

chanz4 wrote: »

I used to work for a claims management company for a few weeks, it would be 50/50 liability as both were doing excessive speed for the road. Also with it been single track neither had full right of way

We don't know exactly what speed the OP was travelling at. However, even if we assume that it is found that the OP's speed was excessive, and therefore that the OP was negligent, how is that negligence causative of the accident when the OP managed to stop prior to the collision?

My own view is that the OP's speed seems to have been appropriate, but actually that is something of a moot point legally. In order to be liable either in part or in full the OP must have been negligent, and that negligent must have caused or contributed to the happening of the accident. If the OP stopped prior to the collision, it cannot be said that their speed was causative of the collision in this situation.

DUTR

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

We don't know exactly what speed the OP was travelling at. However, even if we assume that it is found that the OP's speed was excessive, and therefore that the OP was negligent, how is that negligence causative of the accident when the OP managed to stop prior to the collision?

My own view is that the OP's speed seems to have been appropriate, but actually that is something of a moot point legally. In order to be liable either in part or in full the OP must have been negligent, and that negligent must have caused or contributed to the happening of the accident. If the OP stopped prior to the collision, it cannot be said that their speed was causative of the collision in this situation.

Looking at the video, I'd have to agree on 50/50, I doubt that is a 30mph road, more like 10mph, and I didn't hear any horns sounding at the blind bends.

guy.laister

Wow some of these replies are interesting

First of all, as all with a dashcam will know, with a wide angle lenses the camera cars speed is deceptive. I was only traveling at 15-20mph, and prior to impact around 5mph. Oncoming traffic as a general rule look slower when recorded on a dashcam.

No way was my speed excessive. I drove with due care throughout. Remember , I can see more than what the camera can see, and viisbility was good going down that lane initially. Visibility dropped to a minimum approached the bend which is why I slowed down.

The insurance company have stated that 50/50 is their choice and they refuse to budge. The ombudsman have stated they can not interfere with that decision as it isn't their job to investigate accidents. Nothing is yet set in concrete but unless I take this further it will be

The road is a public road, and is two way. I actually live down this lane, and meet cars daily and have never had a problem. I always make sure I can stop, as I did in this video.

The other driver was driving in a car that had no MOT. It failed on suspension parts THE DAY BEFORE that would have been crucial for him to stop in time. Remember this is a no through road, and so he wasn't on his way to a prebooked mot or repair.

The insurances have indeed seen the video, and say because it is a single track road, regardless of anything it is 50/50.

Retrogamer

DUTR wrote: »

Looking at the video, I'd have to agree on 50/50, I doubt that is a 30mph road, more like 10mph, and I didn't hear any horns sounding at the blind bends.

Why would it be 50/50? The OP was going very slow and had time to stop before the impact. The accident happened due to the other car going too quickly and not being able to stop in time.
If the third party had been travelling at a speed similar to the OP there would have been no need for horns as they would have been able to stop in time.

We have lots of roads like that near me and they're all NSL

DUTR

Retrogamer wrote: »

Why would it be 50/50? The OP was going very slow and had time to stop before the impact. The accident happened due to the other car going too quickly and not being able to stop in time.
If the third party had been travelling at a speed similar to the OP there would have been no need for horns as they would have been able to stop in time.

We have lots of roads like that near me and they're all NSL

I have a dash cam too, and the footage looks slower thn in real life.
If both parties were driving with due consideration for other users on that road the accident would have next to not have occured, even then, there would have been the stubborness of who is going to make way as there certainly isn't room for two cars to pass side by side.

Retrogamer

DUTR wrote: »

I have a dash cam too, and the footage looks slower thn in real life.
If both parties were driving with due consideration for other users on that road the accident would have next to not have occured, even then, there would have been the stubborness of who is going to make way as there certainly isn't room for two cars to pass side by side.

Regardless of what speed the OP was doing before the accident. The OP stopped in time to avoid the accident. His speed dropped considerably from the start of the video to the approach of the blind corner.

They were travelling slow enough to avoid the accident evidenced by stopping before the other car hit them. The third party was travelling too quickly around the corner and caused the accident by not being able to stop in time.

DUTR

Retrogamer wrote: »

Regardless of what speed the OP was doing before the accident. The OP stopped in time to avoid the accident. His speed dropped considerably from the start of the video to the approach of the blind corner.

They were travelling slow enough to avoid the accident evidenced by stopping before the other car hit them. The third party was travelling too quickly around the corner and caused the accident by not being able to stop in time.

Which reminds me of the question that used to be on the insurance claim forms..... what speed were you traveliing at at the time of impact?

At the end of the day the readers here are not the one's upholding the claim, so there will be some that agree 50/50 and some that will not agree.
It's not going to change the underwriter's view.... it's cheaper for them to go 50/50.
The OP states he uses the road daily, I can't believe that along that road this is the 1st incident of this type.

iammumtoone

guy.laister wrote: »

The other driver was driving in a car that had no MOT. It failed on suspension parts THE DAY BEFORE that would have been crucial for him to stop in time. Remember this is a no through road, and so he wasn't on his way to a prebooked mot or repair.

I am not an expert on insurance but if the third party didn't have a valid MOT doesn't that mean they are also uninsured?

Therefore in a collision with an uninsured driver wouldn't you be liable for 100% of your claim anyway as you have no one to claim against?

on the other side surely an uninsured driver would not be able to claim against your insurance as they were not legally allowed on the road in the first place.

DUTR

iammumtoone wrote: »

I am not an expert on insurance but if the third party didn't have a valid MOT doesn't that mean they are also uninsured?

Therefore in a collision with an uninsured driver wouldn't you be liable for 100% of your claim anyway as you have no one to claim against?

on the other side surely an uninsured driver would not be able to claim against your insurance as they were not legally allowed on the road in the first place.

There would be a lot of 3 year or less old cars on the road uninsured then.

iammumtoone

DUTR wrote: »

There would be a lot of 3 year or less old cars on the road uninsured then.

But they don't need a MOT.

Is it really the case that you can drive round illegally yet still hold valid insurance? I never knew that and don't think its right.