Car Insurance

Roosh

At the begining of last year, my wife had a bump in a local supermaket car park with another car, damage to our car about £600. The other driver came out of a parking slot in front of my wife obviously without looking. We duly notified our insurance company. Unfortunately, the only witness to the accident has not been traceable, as only a telephone number was given. However, our insurers went forward and agreed a 50/50 settlement with the third party insurers without my knowledge and without consenting our legal aid company. The description that the even the third party have presented, in my opinion, clearly shows that my wife was not to blame. As a result we have lost out. In my opnion the case should have gone to court. What do others think?

lisyloo

The insurance companies are insterested in minimising costs and not necessarily reaching the fairest conclusion for you.

Going to court costs a fortune (relatively speaking) therefore they tend to agree to go 50/50 especially if there are no independent witnesses.

I know it's very frustrating but clearly you can see that there is little sense in spending a 5 figure sum in court (and risking paying the other sides legal costs as well) when the repairs are much smaller.

Did you keep in touch with the insurers (as this was about 18 months ago)??

I think theya re very unliekly to take this sort of case to court mainly because of the costs especially with no witnesses.
Also you have left it VERY late.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's my honest opinion :-(

mattymoo

Your insurers have clearly prejudiced your position though. When I used to deal with this sort of thing years ago, we had to get everybodies agreement before going ahead with a split settlement like this. Sometimes it was along the lines of "We are going to do this unless we hear from you to the contrary" but we were still keeping people informed.

They should have spoken to your uninsured loss recovery firm at the very least.

Not sure what can be salvaged at this stage. If cheques have not been sent and all their correspondance was "without prejudice" then in theory they could back out with a massive loss of face.

If money has already changed hands though then I would suggest you ask for your NCD to be reinstated (this would have happened if you succeeded with your claim) and an explanation as to how they cocked up like this.

harveybobbles

I had a crash in a car park at the Trafford Centre. I pulled out infront of a Range Rover. I was in a Punto at the time. He was taking me to court left, right and centre and suing me for anything he could.

So, I phoned my insurance company to reiterate that the incident happened in a CAR PARK and they told the third party to get stuffed and its 50/50 or nothing!

Carparks are not classed as public roads, which was handy for me!!

mrbadexample

Also consider the fact that it's in the insurance company's interest to settle everything 50/50. That way they have two drivers at fault, two lots of no-claims bonus to reduce, two lots of premiums to increase etc.
Win-win all round for the *******. :mad:

lisyloo

Win-win all round for the *******

I don't work in insurance and have no axe to grind either way but I do believe that if every case like this went to court then it would put up premiums quite drastically which would not be in the collective interest.

I fuilly understand how on an indidvidual basis this can be very frustrating, but insurance companies are run as businesses and don't necessarily have the interests of the individual at heart.
They want to be as competitive as possible which means doing what is expedient and not what is necessarily fairest.

There are companies that pride themselves on better service and coverage (Hiscocks/Hiscox is one that springs to mind) but I doubt very much that they are have the cheapest premiums.

vikingaero

But Lisyloo the point was that even the third party's view of the accident seemed to support Roosh. I think that the insurer has close the claim too early in agreeing to 50/50 and they should reinstate Roosh to his pre-accident position premium and no claims wise.

Roosh, I would make a formal complaint and take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service if necessary.

raskazz

mrbadexample wrote: »

Also consider the fact that it's in the insurance company's interest to settle everything 50/50. That way they have two drivers at fault, two lots of no-claims bonus to reduce, two lots of premiums to increase etc.
Win-win all round for the *******. :mad:

Nonsense. I've never seen any insurer rushing accept any liability for claims where personal injury is concerned - that can run into millions of pounds.

mattymoo

The additional premium gained from reducing someones NCD is a drop in the ocean compared to what the claims cost. Claims exceeding £1m used to be the exception but are now pretty commonplace thanks in part in changes to mortality tables (to calculate future care costs / loss of earnings) and high level of legal fees.

Any insurer doing what you suggest mrbadexample would not last very long.

Birdy

harveybobbles wrote: »

I had a crash in a car park at the Trafford Centre. I pulled out infront of a Range Rover. I was in a Punto at the time. He was taking me to court left, right and centre and suing me for anything he could.

So, I phoned my insurance company to reiterate that the incident happened in a CAR PARK and they told the third party to get stuffed and its 50/50 or nothing!

Carparks are not classed as public roads, which was handy for me!!

If this is how an innocent party i.e. the range rover driver is treated, it's no wonder there are so many uninsured drivers around! Wish I could avoid car parks.

B.

mattymoo

Car park should not make a difference at all. There are still rules of the road to obey, e.g. extra care to be taken when reversing out, give way at end of aisles etc.

Some car parks (plus beaches, and filling station forecourts) can be classed as a road in any event under the Road Traffic Act.