Insurance not admitting liability

James_hughes1985

I understand it's not a quick fix etc, I'm just unsure how the insurers can deny it,is this standard procedure??

Nearlyold

James_hughes1985 wrote: »

I understand it's not a quick fix etc, I'm just unsure how the insurers can deny it,is this standard procedure??

Yes its not unheard of for the other party to deny liability (even when this would appear to defy logic) and then cave in at the last moment when it comes to down to the wire, often just before the court hearing.

Quentin

Are you sure they are denying liability and not arguing about how much compensation your sol is claiming?


(The sheriff reported ".. no injury of any significance was caused"??)

rs65

James_hughes1985 wrote: »

I understand it's not a quick fix etc, I'm just unsure how the insurers can deny it,is this standard procedure??

Your first post says that are not admitting liability, which is different from denying liability.

An insurer can make a payment without an admission of liability.

James_hughes1985

That's my mistake how the post was written I do apologise, it's denying liability my solicitor said to me, then she also said they have until the 20/12/16 so that's where I'm confused, if they are denying it why do I have to wait? And more to the point why are they denying it?

rudekid48

It sounds as if they are disputing 'causation' rather than liability, which is not uncommon. As others have said this would be disputing that the incident caused the level of damages being claimed rather than disputing liability for the accident itself...

Crazy_Jamie

James_hughes1985 wrote: »

That's my mistake how the post was written I do apologise, it's denying liability my solicitor said to me, then she also said they have until the 20/12/16 so that's where I'm confused, if they are denying it why do I have to wait? And more to the point why are they denying it?

There is literally not a single person on the internet who can answer this question. Only your solicitor can answer it. It may be that they have a legitimate reason for denying liability, though the conviction makes this unlikely. It may be that they are disputing causation. It may be that they think your claim is exaggerated or fraudulent. It may be that they haven't actually denied anything but are still investigating the matter; the 20th December deadline sounds like the time limit for them to respond within the pre action protocol, in which case they may not have set out their stall definitively. In the latter case an admission of liability may be forthcoming on or before the 20th. I could go on, but I'm just throwing out possibilities. You need to go to your solicitor and ask for a clear answer as to what has been said, and what information you are expecting from them on the 20th. That is the only way that you will get answers at this stage.

thetriggerhappypwner

Reading this thread, it sounds to me like the insurance company of the driver of the VW Passat is trying to delay/stall on this claim to avoid paying out. They know that after thier insured driver is convicted of dangerous driving (should have been assault as well, but I am not familiar with the laws in Scotland as they differ slightly to England and Wales), they are automatically liable, aren't they?

dacouch

thetriggerhappypwner wrote: »

Reading this thread, it sounds to me like the insurance company of the driver of the VW Passat is trying to delay/stall on this claim to avoid paying out. They know that after thier insured driver is convicted of dangerous driving (should have been assault as well, but I am not familiar with the laws in Scotland as they differ slightly to England and Wales), they are automatically liable, aren't they?

Not neccesarily, read the two posts above yours.